Tu-199/Yak 131 and Other Fixed Winged Possibilities

[nmdanny 22]

I hope that the A-164 Wipeout is actually a majorly redesigned model, if it's an A-10 with PiP and some minor improvements then I'll be very disappointed.

[[evo] dan 79]

I hope that the A-164 Wipeout is actually a majorly redesigned model, if it's an A-10 with PiP and some minor improvements then I'll be very disappointed.

I kind of expect an upgraded A10C if I am honest with some new weapons on it.

[maddogx 13]

The A-164 description does say "better shape, engines and armaments", which sounds like it will be more than just a minor adjustment to the original A-10 model.

I expect it will be recognizable as a descendant of the A-10, but more angular and stealthy/futuristic in appearance, similar to the Ghosthawk in comparison to the Blackhawk.

[odie0351 67]

The A-164 description does say "better shape, engines and armaments", which sounds like it will be more than just a minor adjustment to the original A-10 model.

I expect it will be recognizable as a descendant of the A-10, but more angular and stealthy/futuristic in appearance, similar to the Ghosthawk in comparison to the Blackhawk.

I'm not gonna lie, I'd be very happy with this. Because the way I see it, they've already went that route with the Ghost Hawk so might as well follow through with the rest. Really wish they would post a screenshot or a video or even a mildly revealing post...come on BIS throw us a bone here lol

[jgbtl292 0]

please not a futuristic wonder a10 .... with ideas from teens with no background. that what we have is enough on futuristic look stuff with no future functions ^^ the idz es infantry system can more in 2012 than all what we have on future opfor 2035 :rolleyes: we need it not ^^

....

Edited March 8, 2014 by JgBtl292

[Largos. 10]

please not a futuristic wonder a10 .... with ideas from teens with no background. that what we have is enough on futuristic look stuff with no future functions ^^ the idz es infantry system can more in 2012 than all what we have on future opfor 2035 :rolleyes: we need it not ^^

....

Ok buddy first of all I don't appreciate you down talking the posters in my thread. This thread also isn't supposed to be about the whole "The futuristic arma 3 idea is stupid" and finally if you're going to be insulting people at least make it comprehendible.

[chortles 263]

The A-164 Wipeout description that drebin052 posted has a perfectly plausible explanation: in real life the refitting of the A-10 was supposed to let the fleet survive into 2035 (were it not for the recently-revealed would-be 2015 Pentagon budget that'd retire them all), but since Arma 3 takes place in 2035 the end-of-life point was instead reached in 2030, and/or that's (also? or instead?) when the need for a successor in the same vein (armored, heavy, designed primarily for ground attack) to be designed and ordered was formalized.

What else interests me is that the To-199 Neophron description actually gives us another detail about the A-164 Wipeout -- namely, the Neophron "cannot carry as much payload as NATO's A-164 and has to rearm more often, but it can take-off even from the rough terrain, not being as dependent on air bases or aircraft carriers." That plus the whole "A-10 derivative" thing suggests ten Wipeout weapon stations to the Neophron's eight, although I'd be amused to see if they actually went far as the Arma 2 Su-34's twelve weapons (six Ch-29s, four R-73s, two rocket pods with twenty rockets each) plus the gun. Besides the Neophron having potentially greater air-to-air capability than the Wipeout though, I'm guessing that the Neophron may also have some degree of STOL capability... not a substantive difference on Stratis, but it may well make a big difference on Altis due to how I've only ever seen the one "prepared" runway there and then otherwise just the dirt airstrips that are too short for a conventional take-off!

Loadout-wise, for the Neophron I wouldn't expect much of anything different from the Buzzard as far as CAS loadout except for rocket pods; both jets have a gun pod on their underfuselage hardpoint, although the Neophron's may be higher caliber and presumably have a different ammo capacity. (It may be a 25 mm gun, but the only gun pod identified for the Yak-130 has been the UPK-23-250 pod... think the double-barreled 23 mm gun on the L-39ZA from OA but with 250 rounds instead of 150.)

For anyone wondering re: what the Neophron's weapons may compare to in real life, one of Yakolev's Web pages has an article where the Yak-130 is identified with compatible weapons: the R-73 and R-77 AAMs, the B-8M1 twenty-rocket (80 mm) and B-13L five-rocket (122 mm) pods, the KMGU submunitions dispenser pod, the Kh-25M air-to-surface missile, the KAB-500Kr TV-guided bomb (nominally 500 kg/1102 lb), and the UPK-23-250 gun pod (250 rounds of the same ammo and gun as the L-39ZA from OA).

[Gutsnav 13]

The reason the "Neophron" is able to take off in rough terrain is because of a design feature from the Yak-130. The Yak-130 had a special plate that covered the engine intakes (while still allowing air to pass through). This plate blocks any debris from flying into the engines. Grass, twigs, leaves, & rocks are a common problem when taking off from makeshift airfields. Ever been leaf blowing and a leaf or rock stops the blower? Sort of what happens when debris gets in a jet engine.

[odie0351 67]

What else interests me is that the To-199 Neophron description actually gives us another detail about the A-164 Wipeout -- namely, the Neophron "cannot carry as much payload as NATO's A-164 and has to rearm more often, but it can take-off even from the rough terrain, not being as dependent on air bases or aircraft carriers." That plus the whole "A-10 derivative" thing suggests ten Wipeout weapon stations to the Neophron's eight, although I'd be amused to see if they actually went far as the Arma 2 Su-34's twelve weapons (six Ch-29s, four R-73s, two rocket pods with twenty rockets each) plus the gun. Besides the Neophron having potentially greater air-to-air capability than the Wipeout though, I'm guessing that the Neophron may also have some degree of STOL capability... not a substantive difference on Stratis, but it may well make a big difference on Altis due to how I've only ever seen the one "prepared" runway there and then otherwise just the dirt airstrips that are too short for a conventional take-off!

On the note of weapon stations, and not likely mind you, they could also have the Wipeout carry even more ordinance by using the rack mounting system, I forget its name, which would allow it to mount up to three AGM's or bombs on a single hard point. As long as weight isn't taken into effect:o it could give it nearly twice the ordinance of the Neophron.

Edited March 9, 2014 by Odie0351

[paecmaker 23]

The A-164

"although I'd be amused to see if they actually went far as the Arma 2 Su-34's twelve weapons (six Ch-29s, four R-73s, two rocket pods with twenty rockets each) plus the gun. "

Fun thing is that the opfor cas plane seems to have 10 weapons plus gun, and then the blufor would have more. :bounce3:

[spanishsurfer 58]

OPFOR Jet: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bic1VuxCcAExq70.jpg:large

BLUFOR Jet: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bic1FNVCYAATIiK.png:large

You're welcome.

[siipperi 10]

OPFOR Jet: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bic1VuxCcAExq70.jpg:large

BLUFOR Jet: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bic1FNVCYAATIiK.png:large

You're welcome.

Poorly modelled A10, or should I say fantasy modelled A10 and what ever that second is (f16 + Yak hybrid?), horrible! No suprise though, entire arma 3 vehicle design is horrible. There is reason why many of those have been only prototypes or tech demos... Most likely those doesnt feature working pip map or anything fancy but tab to lock boredom.

I mean designers just take other part from another aircraft and another part from other aircraft then mix it up, looks so wrong and mix that with stupid must have camos with no markings what so ever...

[sorophx 25]

an A-10, nice. that's all I really wanted. good thing BIS didn't try to reinvent the wheel

[CaptainObvious 95]

Cool, can't wait to get my hands on that A10 :icon_twisted:

[paecmaker 23]

Poorly modelled A10, or should I say fantasy modelled A10 and what ever that second is (f16 + Yak hybrid?), horrible! No suprise though, entire arma 3 vehicle design is horrible. There is reason why many of those have been only prototypes or tech demos... Most likely those doesnt feature working pip map or anything fancy but tab to lock boredom.

I mean designers just take other part from another aircraft and another part from other aircraft then mix it up, looks so wrong and mix that with stupid must have camos with no markings what so ever...

Whats wrong with the opfor jet? Its a one manned yak 131.

And personally I love the future A10 design.

[chortles 263]

Fun thing is that the opfor cas plane seems to have 10 weapons plus gun, and then the blufor would have more. :bounce3:

You and Odie0351 are both correct! An extra underwing pylon per wing (compared to the Yak-130/131) for the Nephron, while the Wipeout has its air-to-ground missiles on a triple ejector rack (TER); that means a presumable loadout of six air-to-ground missiles (triple of the Buzzard's two and fifty percent more than the Neophron's four) and three or four GBU-12s (I'm guessing the latter), the latter of which would be twice as many LGBs as on the Buzzard and the Neophron... only fourteen rockets since the Wipeout screenshot is using the seven-rocket pod, but I'm not sure exactly how many there are on the Neophron's pods.

As such, the Neophron and Wipeout are both qualitatively superior to the Buzzard, preserving the nominal "BLUFOR/OPFOR > INDFOR" dynamic of the prior games... but we have yet to see air-to-air loadouts for the Neophron, much less the Wipeout, whereas the Buzzard has an AA loadout replacing the CAS weapons with four Zephyr missiles that out-range all three jets' default air-to-air missiles...

Incidentally, it looks like this time around the designers for the Wipeout dropped the A-10's ECM jammer (in A2 it was on the outermost left wing pylon) and moved one of the air-to-air missiles over there from the outermost right wing pylon (where it was in A2 thanks to a "dual rail adapter").

[Westonsammy 1]

Poorly modelled A10... entire arma 3 vehicle design is horrible.

I think you are either being overly negative or posting without thinking.

The ArmA 3 model design is incredible, the models are extremely crisp and have tons of detail (If you turn your graphics settings up accordingly) So I don't see how you can say they have "Poorly modelled the A10" when the modeling is very good.

However, I assume that you meant that the A10 was with the other ArmA 3 vehicles with its "horrible design". Although I can't really agree with calling the vehicles design "horrible", because it's not like BI made up the designs. The A10 and the Yak 131 are both real aircraft, although BI have changed up their original look a bit, the core design is still there. Same goes for most of the vehicles in the game, except for a few like the Mi-48 and the civilian cars... So If you don't like the designs of the vehicles, blame the companies/militaries that made them, not BI.

[babylonjoke 22]

I think you are either being overly negative or posting without thinking...

.... So I don't see how you can say they have "Poorly modelled the A10" when the modeling is very good.

..

To me it appears to be just un updated model of Arma1-A2 and I bet they havn't even updated the cockpit.

Yeah the model looks great, ok, just doesn't fit in the whole scenrio at all. Doesn't make sense have 70' aircraft in a 2035 scenario. Doesn't even fit in the Nato force that till now was looking "realistic" and not really "futuristic" like the CSAT.

At this point I was more happy with the good "old" F35, makes more sense to me.

But anyway who knows, might once I'l see it closely I'll fall in love with it.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Babylonjoke

[odie0351 67]

You and Odie0351 are both correct! An extra underwing pylon per wing (compared to the Yak-130/131) for the Nephron, while the Wipeout has its air-to-ground missiles on a triple ejector rack (TER); that means a presumable loadout of six air-to-ground missiles (triple of the Buzzard's two and fifty percent more than the Neophron's four) and three or four GBU-12s (I'm guessing the latter), the latter of which would be twice as many LGBs as on the Buzzard and the Neophron... only fourteen rockets since the Wipeout screenshot is using the seven-rocket pod, but I'm not sure exactly how many there are on the Neophron's pods.

As such, the Neophron and Wipeout are both qualitatively superior to the Buzzard, preserving the nominal "BLUFOR/OPFOR > INDFOR" dynamic of the prior games... but we have yet to see air-to-air loadouts for the Neophron, much less the Wipeout, whereas the Buzzard has an AA loadout replacing the CAS weapons with four Zephyr missiles that out-range all three jets' default air-to-air missiles...

Incidentally, it looks like this time around the designers for the Wipeout dropped the A-10's ECM jammer (in A2 it was on the outermost left wing pylon) and moved one of the air-to-air missiles over there from the outermost right wing pylon (where it was in A2 thanks to a "dual rail adapter").

Not one hundred percent sure but from what I could count on the gameinformer video from a few weeks ago it looks like twenty rockets in each of the pods on the neophron, also on that same video if you look very closely at the MFD it appears to have twenty per pod on a round counter of some sort. In fact you can also make it out in this screenshot http://www.bistudio.com/mailing/images/screenshots/arma3/arma3_win_screenshot_01_to199.jpg its even counted out in intervals of two. Also cant say for sure on the Wipeout but my guess is its only three GBU's, because it kinda looks like the middle of the three visible bombs is mounted on a centerline hard point. Considering the real life A-10 has eleven hard points( four under each wing and three under the fuselage) its possible but not likely that it could have as many as five and two had already been fired when the screenshot was taken. Cant make out any empty hard points though so as I said, unlikely.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Odie0351

[Westonsammy 1]

To me it appears to be just un updated model of Arma1-A2 and I bet they havn't even updated the cockpit.

Yeah the model looks great, ok, just doesn't fit in the whole scenrio at all. Doesn't make sense have 70' aircraft in a 2035 scenario. Doesn't even fit in the Nato force that till now was looking "realistic" and not really "futuristic" like the CSAT.

The screenshot that was linked earlier doesn't do the A-164 justice. If you scroll down this page, they have a full body screenshot of it, it looks like what they did with the Ghosthawk, just take the old design for the aircraft and make it look more stealthy/futuristic (The screenshot also shows a nice view of the new Ghost Hotel...)

http://www.bistudio.com/english/home/news/projects/442-arma-3s-final-campaign-episode-win-unleashed-on-march-20

[AveryTheKitty 2626]

The screenshot that was linked earlier doesn't do the A-164 justice. If you scroll down this page, they have a full body screenshot of it, it looks like what they did with the Ghosthawk, just take the old design for the aircraft and make it look more stealthy/futuristic (The screenshot also shows a nice view of the new Ghost Hotel...)

http://www.bistudio.com/english/home/news/projects/442-arma-3s-final-campaign-episode-win-unleashed-on-march-20

Then again the Stealth Hawk was a real design.

[babylonjoke 22]

Oh cool, an empty hotel (irony)

Edited March 11, 2014 by Babylonjoke

[Wisp 10]

Then again the Stealth Hawk was a real design.

Which no one has seen (except for the tail). The Zero Dark Thirty movie extrapolated it out to create a fictional look, and Arma 3 made a very similar looking helicopter.

[cpl_hicks 2]

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 ;)
  

Except for the part where myself and many others have successfully played very nice mutliplayer coop missions including domination using F18's, f16's etc doing CAS and occasionally exceeding 1000 knots and it worked quite well (in A2 and to some degree in A3).

Let the admins decide......

Edited March 12, 2014 by CPL_HICKS

[odie0351 67]

Firstly, glad to say I was wrong and Chortles was right with the GBU count on the wipeout, it woulda been kinda awkward and uncalled for it to of just had three.

Secondly, I gotta say I'm pretty damn pleased with these aircraft, was iffy about the neophron at first but it has already grown on me:cool:, as for the wipeout, I don't know about the rest of you guys but I for one like the slightly futuristic A-10 concept. Its certainly a beast of a plane so that's a plus! Just crossing my fingers now that maybe someday we'll get an official F-35 and some fixed wing transports...and some heavy lift helo's but that's a gripe for another thread;)