Sundowner.pl

You aim roughly with that sight, and let the minigun spin, you look where the tracers are going, and adjust the rest of 3 second burst visually. The XM/M-5 nose mounted 40mm grenade launched had similar sight:

The 3D model we saw had wire strike kit, and RWR/MLWS sensor mount brackets on the nose, like on the Georgian UH-1H... but also had two sets of pitot tubes, one from UH-1H, and one from UH-1D. One can only hope that this shown cockpit is not the only one, or not the final one. But I have been around to long, to have such high hopes. Plus the information blackout only ads to the confusion.

You're missing my point. The Huey is fine, if it's the right one. And US DoS, Spanish, Italian, even Iraqi would be the right choice. Not Vietnam-era one.

Ok, please tell me how can I build a mission where there would be infantry battle two battalion strength on both sides ? Or a hot extraction of a small infantry team chased by few regiments in densely vegetated area, where vegetation would play any role at all. Or regiment insertion into an well coordinated ambush ? DCS have limitations, infantry warfare is one of those things it simply can't do, because it didn't supposed to. This helicopter was designed to support infantry warfare. So you see my problem now ?

Don't get me wrong, I'm simply expressing my concern. Last missions I flew in multiplayer were in very dense air defense networks and large quantities of armor, where even the A-10C had problems being useful at all. There is not much I can do with an old gunship there, and most people I fly with are not very interested in anything that have its Vne below A-10 stall speed :D Therefore I was hoping for differently configured aircraft. I simply can't fight in this environment without RWR and countermeasures. And this leads me from 'certain buy' into 'questionable, even after initial reviews' attitude. Everyone of us have different approach to these matters, that's mine.

There's the catch, FSX don't have one and only FM for helicopters, there is a freeware "Helicopter Total Realism" mod, made by Frednaar, that overwrite physics of flight, making them on par with the DodoSim Bell 206 - which is still the benchmark for classic-helicopter simulation (Ka-50 is a different aerodynamic setup, apples and oranges ;) ). Plus there is not only FSX on the helicopter market. There's also X-Plane, with Robinson R22 by Dreamfoil, and also Take On: Helicopters, which even though limited in avionics department, is pretty damn good in the flight dynamics, and only place so far to fly a gunship helicopter in the right - infantry rich - environment. Now as far as doing a "simple" aircraft first, to learn platform quirks. I'm all for that approach... but! This is still a product that has to sell, and if it's a product which usefulness in the environment it's put into is questionable - it becomes a gamble. UH-1H from mid 60s is relatively simple helicopter, but there are simpler ones, that the whole sim could benefit from implementing those. For example more modern variants of Hughes 369, like MD500 Defender, or AH-6J Little Bird. Very simple helicopters (no hydraulics, single stage transmission), with minimal avionics package - but enough to make them useful scouting out targets for Warthogs to engage, while still capable of avoiding AAA and SAMs.

I was saving money just for that Huey, but now I have doubts. Can someone tell me. what am I suppose to do with 1960s-tech helicopter in modern day Digital Combat Simulator ? Because I can fly a virtual Huey already, few of those. I can fly them wherever I want, and that include Mekong Delta, or Viet-Nam higlands with period correct fire bases scattered over the hill tops, and I can also shoot rockets and guns there. I can fly sling-loaded cargo, I can perform search and rescue using on-board hoist. What will I be able to do with this UH-1H in DCS environment ? Because "shooting" is right out the window. It's the same problem with Mustang - there's very little to shoot at, and a lot of things that can shoot at you, and very effectively. I was hoping for more modern bird after all, either 80-tech, being retrofitted EH-1H, or more current, like the US DoS, Italian, or Spanish helicopters in Afghanistan. Something that would at least give me some situation awareness (not even talking about self defense), and possibility to at least employ it as a scout.

Sooo, we can put the countermeasures topic back to bed. No flares, no chaff, no MLWS, no RWR, no radalt, no NVG...

http://imageshack.us/a/img543/3531/screen121005190531.jpg http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/5513/screen121005190548.jpg http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1319/screen121005190503.jpg :smilewink:

Time will tell. But now, everyone should read this article, written by Tom Phillips, it will shed some light on using the M158 2.75" FFAR launcher and associated equipment, that we saw on screenshots and videos of DCS: UH-1H Scrable Seawolves! #15 - "Rockets"

Just remember to have the circuit breaker for armament pulled out, you don't want to be the guy who shoot 2.75" rocket across own airfield :thumbup:

Basically every helicopter weapon system was experimental at that time. the XM22 was pretty much first guided anti tank missile used on those helicopters, but wasn't very reliable, therefore work continued into development of the TOW missile and the XM26 subsystem that saw combat in Vietnam and proved to be very effective, even though its first combat use wasn't very glamorous, as the first two targets were US M41 tank and a howitzer that fell into NVA hands. The AGM-22 missiles didn't saw much use though, as they proved to have rather poor accuracy. Missile was directly controlled with a joystick - similarly to the AGM-12 Bullpup missile, but controlled via wire, not radio. The range was short, and controls unprecise - at best. Later XM26 TOW was controlled by a computer that tracked fired missile, and operator only had to keep the crosshair on target to hit it. There were still some problems with firing from a moving platform - like loosing lock on the missile, or snagging control wire on tree branches, but it was improvement overall. later that system was used on Cobra attack helicopters and exported Hughes 369s, never again to be used by Hueys. As for your quote, there were only two XM26 equipped Huey send to Vietnam, the third stayed in the States at Fort Rucker for more testing and personnel training.

Edwin W. Fuller Photo was taken by Russ Warrier in 1968 at LZ Evans.

M3 is the ARA (Aerial Rocket Artilery) system - first system mounted on Hueys and earlier on CH-34 firing 2,75" FFAR rockets (Mk.4 and Mk.40 ). Those had 2 launcher blocks each holding 4x6 rockets: Those were also, on some occasions, mounted together with the M22 subsystem, giving up to 48 rockets and two guided missiles: But in South East Asia, it was too much weight for dash-5 and dash-9 powered Bravos, so rocket launchers either were not fully loaded, or, like on the photo above, stripped down.

Actually, not only rockets :D Depends on what Belsimtek want to model, there was a lot of different armament options to be hung on the bomb racks: - XM18 7.62mm minigun pods with 1500 rounds of ammo; - XM14 12.7mm M3 (1200rpm .50cal Browning) pod with 750 rounds; - CBU-72 cluster bombs; - BLU-1 napalm bombs; - Mk-81 dumb bombs (El Salvador and Lebanon); Not to mention that HH-1K was a test platform for AGM-122 Sidearm, short range anti-radiation missile. There was also UH-1D called "Big Daddy" that had Pontiac M39 20mm (1500rpm!) cannon strapped to its belly ;) Other systems, like XM26 TOW, XM30 30mm, and XM31 20mm were not add-ons like previously listed, but were a single weapon system together with the helicopter (UH-1B in those cases). Plus, it is a standardized bomb rack, and other worldwide users can hang anything they want on it - one example is the French 68mm SNEB launcher that many of you saw in "Apocalypse Now" movie.

With M6/M16 or M21 system, pilot can also fire machine guns or in case of XM5 - also the grenade launcher. It's selectable on the intervalometer panel on central console.

You will improvise, adapt and overcome :pilotfly:

No dash-13 powered UH-1H came with autopilot from factory. Only the twin-engine 212 model got AFCS. There are some aftermarket ones, although some require the optional dual hydraulic kit. And the SOTAS JUH-1H also was retrofitted with autopilot. edit. Darn, AlphaOneSix was faster ;)

Hang on... we have to make one thing clear first "DCS: Nevada" will be the whole state of Nevada + part of California (Nevada is not a rectangle ;) ), or only "Nevada Test and Training Range" ? There is a BIG difference. Especially compared to the current map, which is mostly water.

In Huey you can operate the winch using Coolie Hat Switch* from both pilot seats ;) *UH-1 don't have "beep trim", only the force trim clutch reset on the switch left of the coolie hat.

There is no fuse choice, and the warheads work... simply wrong. A heavy 7.7kg fragmentation warhead with timed, or proximity fuse, should be quite deadly to infantry and small vehicles. The WP round should create huge white puff of smoke and fire - right now it just a smoke, less than a miniature smoke flare in my survival packet. It's a 4kg of phosphor and bursting charge for crying out loud! Then change fuse on WP round from point detonating to proximity, or timed, and get a rain of fire covering target area... would probably result in enormous fps hit though ;) The inaccuracy is quite correct, the end effect, not so much. Hope this will change with time. PS. That's how a WP FFAR going off looks like:

You do realize that this weapon system that was shown to us on that weird 3D model (part Georgian UH-1H, part Australian UH-1D "Bushranger"), only time it was utilized in combat - on the Australian Bushranger - didn't had hydraulic minigun steering, and the guns were harmonized with the FFAR reflex sight ?

Task Force Normandy, January 17, 1991 :thumbup:

That would be very unlikely from the US side. Though would benefit both USAFE and PolAF. If the USAF is afraid of the costs of building a base here... don't need to be. The 31 FW would easily go to Redzikowo (EPSK), that base is going to be modernized by the US DoD anyway if the NDB interceptors go there, and it have a nice 6600ft long runway. And it's few minutes flight from few proving grounds. If not that one, there are many other ex-Polish and ex-Soviet air bases thrown all across the country. Although, why Aviano AB is such a problem, and Spangdahlem AB not. Germany is getting as restricted, as Italy. In some aspects even more.

It's not the kilometers we need, its the hours that airplane can stay up, and there is difference if its 4 or 6.. or more. The operational costs eventually would be lower for the '39. But! The F-16 is already few (3?) times cheaper than MiG-29. Paying a bit more for running more capable aircraft is acceptable. Actually it could be possible to pay even more, if even more capable aircraft would be purchased (F-15SE, F-35 ?) and replaced that money guzzling MiGs. Taking a history lesson - the Sweden is not really a frontline country, and would be a pain in the... behind to invading, the '39 works great for them. For Poland, it simply won't work, here is a need for aircrafts that can fight fiercely and effectively, without any cover (SAMs go out on both sides first) and without numerical superiority. What is needed is powerful air superiority fighter, that can hold it's own in the air against both air and surface threats, and perform other missions like recce, precision strike and CAS. F-16 was the cheapest thing that can do that. It's the smallest platform practical, we can only go up from there.