Vampyre

Actually, SEAD in the BM was a high altitude affair with very high speeds involved. They would use the speed and altitude to increase the kinematic performance of the KH-58U or KH-31P missiles in a sort of shoot and scoot attack on Nike Hercules, Bloodhound, Patriot and Hawk batteries as you imagine. The low level SEAD stuff was left to the Su-17's, Su-24's and MiG-27's.

You included the prototype PDSL but not the BM which was produced...:doh: There are also two main variants of the reconnaissance Foxbats that were steadily upgraded over the years, one for photographic recon (R, RB, RBV, RBT) and the other for Radar/electronic recon (RBK, RBF, RBS). NATO differentiated the two by the code names Foxbat B and Foxbat D respectively. The BM is a dedicated SEAD aircraft and was known to NATO as the Foxbat F.

The Fitter K Had the Klyon-54 fitted as standard but was was never fitted with an onboard camera targeting system. It used the TV seeker of the weapons it was armed with similar to how Mavericks are employed.

I know the real ones require the AWW-13 datalink pod. Could that be the issue?

There are four required pieces of the Hawk site. MPQ-50, MPQ-46, PCP and Launchers in a group to get it to work. All of the pieces are critical to its operation. They will also not work if you set them out as individual units... they have to be in a group to work.

That only works if you have the bodies to do it with and a light workload. OOMA makes it so you can only use what you have available and a good maintenance controller won't let that happen anyway. The bluescreen Nalcomis OMA would let you put as many people in work as you wanted by just putting a name then plus XX many sailors. OOMA won't let you do that anymore and the maintenance man hours are much more realistic now simply because the program won't let you fudge the numbers.

How many people do you think bought the Mi-8 because it was the one helo that they wanted above all others or for its combat capability? I'd venture to say not that many. My hunch is that many virtual pilots, especially the true rotorhead types, will buy any helo that is released. That is why the metrics for the Mi-8 and UH-1 are important. Also, I did a quick and dirty count and of the people who posted about 25 stated that they wanted the H-53, 13 wanted the H-47, six wanted the H-46 (also a medium like the Puma), and 12 wanted the Puma/Super Puma... many of whom wanted multiples of the choices listed.

Puma is not a large heavy lift helo and not anywhere near to being on my list of desired airframes. The only aircraft currently in game that was anywhere near my most desired list is the A-10... and I have everything except the C-101 of which I couldn't bring myself to purchase due to the inclusion of unrealistic weapons capabilities and the fact that I already have the Hawk and L-39. That being said, I would still buy the SA-330 if someone made it just to tinker with it and see how it works. The Mi-8 and UH-1 would have the metrics required to decide whether or not to go forward with development... provided RAZBAM has access to the numbers for them. Hopefully BST should, even though they have gone quiet on the subject, have the AH-1 out as well by the time a RAZBAM heavy lifter is released and there will also be many other modules released by then as well including the A-6E. As for how many would buy a helo armed only with door gunners, look at the poll numbers and that will give you a reasonable expectation that it will sell in pretty good numbers. +1 :thumbup: This is the point. Plus, we would be fleshing out the stable of flyable airframes to truly make DCS the sandbox that ED have envisioned.

Says the guy that voted no. I can honestly say that, for me, the CH-53E is one of the most desired airframes to be modeled for DCS and I can tell from many of the postings in this thread, I'm not the only one that feels that way. As for cost effectiveness, that is for the developer (be it RAZBAM, BST, LNS, et cetera) to decide. The risk is considered high because this is relatively uncharted territory in relation to development in the DCS engine. The low amount of weapons and dedicated support role are not everyones "cup of tea", so to speak. The closest metric they have to determine the viability of a heavy lift module will be the Mi-8MTv2 and UH-1H... both of which have rockets and guns in their loadouts but the heavy lifters will have only the door mounted guns for defensive suppression fire. The pew pew shoot'em up guys won't like it much but the guys that enjoy just flying, learning systems and accomplishing support missions will enjoy the heck out of a module like this just like I see them doing in the UH-1 and Mi-8 in multiplayer. Flight dynamics wise, DCS perfect engine for a heavy lift helo module. Progress does need to be made in incorporating realistic cargo loads and slingloads into the base DCS engine but I don't consider that to be a blocking issue due to the current CTLD script in use as a stand in for that feature. As Cibit astutely pointed out earlier in this thread... "If you build it they will come".

This is true of the older Nalcomis OMA but with OOMA it's close to impossible to fudge the numbers for manpower purposes. I'm not sure where the 20 MMH per FH number came from but it is definitely way low for the Hornets in the fleet right now. The jets have aged and are becoming much more maintenance intensive... and they are not ageing well as they were only meant to last to 6k flight hours and many of them are passing 8k flight hours and some now approaching 10k. Also keep in mind that the lower hour jets were the ones that spent a lot of time as hangar queens... and still really are hangar queens.

It's a Radar track breaker for the E/F/G/H bands.

I actually had a lot of fun flying the Swordfish in the modded Il-2 1946 back in the day. We would slowly sneak in to lob our torpedos and slowly slink away... the key to everything was slowly doing everything...slowly. Did I say it was slow?:pilotfly:

As much as I am enjoying the CTLD script I do agree that realistic cargo weight and the balance of the cargo should be a factor. Right now we have Huey's flying around fully armed and carrying a reinforced M-1 tank platoon inside it plus a simulated sling load TOW HMMWV... of which it could pick up none of in real life. ED is not there yet, that is true, but if we say no to an aircraft module simply because all of the functionality of cargo lifting is not yet included we are doing ourselves a disservice. If cargo helicopters or planes are not in the game there is no need to improve those aspects of the game. I'm thinking of it as the more cargo/transport aircraft we have the greater chance that there will be greater focus to include that kind of content. My thoughts on implementing internal cargo would be similar to how the weapons loadouts for the combat aircraft are handled. Simply have a cargo menu with a layout of the aircrafts cargo bay and have the space taken up by selectable loads with realistic weight added exactly as it is selected and placed in the aircraft just like how weapons are chosen now. For sling loading I just wish ED would fix what they have already done... I miss MP sling loading.

I don't see the value that would make me want to buy a module that just looks pretty. There has to be some functionality to make it worth paying for otherwise it should just be included in the base DCS:W game.

I would expect a full ship module to be crewable with at least the primary positions such as Captain/bridge, Air Boss/Prifly, Weaps/CIC, Cheng/Engineering and ACHO/flight deck control. In this case, if it is a Tarawa or Essex class, an amphibious capability that uses landing craft and LCAC's to move vehicles, troops and supplies ashore would be a must... of course you could just do an Iwo Jima class and only have to worry about the air components.

Absolutely YES!:thumbup: I've been hoping a developer would do a CH-53E Super Stallion for a long time. Any H-53 would be good though. I'd go for a Merlin HC3, CH-47 Chinook, Mi-26 Halo and CH-37 Mojave as well. I'd also love to have an H-60 of any variant with a preference for the CSAR/SPECOPS variants but any one would do.

The F4U-1 series includes the F4U-1, F4U-1C, F-4U-1D and F-4U-1A postwar designation. The F4U-1 was the first to be used in combat in the Solomon Islands and included the birdcage and revised canopy versions with the new engines.

The key is the word "competent", meaning it can get the job done. The merge against other fighters is not what the ADV was designed for. The ADV was supposed to defend the GIUK gap and the UK itself from Soviet long range bombers. It was competent at that and pretty much only that. When the cold war ended the Tornado ADV's mission needed to expand but the aircraft was not well rounded enough to perform all that was being ask of it. It was very fast at low level and had useful loiter capabilities, carried eight missiles (Sidewinder and Skyflash), but it's high altitude performance was poor and maneuverability lack luster. Competent but not outstanding.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence-aerospace/products/combat-jets/pegasus/engine-specifications.aspx They call it a vectored thrust turbofan... marketing. Bypass ratio is 1.2

The Pegasus is definitely a high bypass engine. about 60% of the thrust is produced by the cold section (forward nozzles) with the remaining 40% coming out of the hot section (aft nozzles). As for the wing, a straight wing is very efficient at doing what wings are supposed to do, create lift. Aerodynamically, if you want high subsonic speeds and large lifting capacity a mildly swept wing is ideal which is what I think you are trying to say. The name of the parts you are referring to in the engine is the Variable Stators. That is what controls flow into the engine for optimal performance.

Here you go. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160816

Sniper ATP, TIALD 500, TERMA and DJRP pods.

So, no more Dassault deltas... Super Étendard Modernisé is a possibility in addition to the Kfir's and Cheetah then?:smilewink:

None of them will work with steam. You have to have the standalone DCS World to use the store products.

I remember seeing the night airshow at Miramar in 1999... Too bad they don't do those anymore.