AlphaOneSix

There is one very good reason for the separate A-A weapon selection button to select the Igla for for firing that nobody is mentioning, but I'm sure it won't sway anyone's already entrenched positions, so I'll just save it for another conversation, although it shouldn't be too hard to research.

Lamp.

Just remember that the laser starts out at the nose of the aircraft and is only a couple of inches wide and can't get any narrower than that. In other words, the cone gets larger as you move away from the launcher vehicle. Well, in the case of the Vikhr, the cone "reshapes" to maintain a roughly 6 meter grid at the missile. The aircraft knows how far away the missile is and keeps the cone at 6 meters all the way to the target. In this sense, it does make it look like the cone is "tightening" as the missile gets farther away, and I suppose it is, but the missile just knows that it is trying to stay at the center of a 6 meter circle. Beam riding missiles are basically impossible to fool or jam, but it also means that you can't buddy lase them because they have to get into the beam very quickly or they just go ballistic and get lost. It also means that beam riders fly a straight line to their target, at least compared to things like Hellfire which look for the reflected laser energy from a target and are able to fly different (typically lofting) flight paths.

The PVS-31s have adjustable gain, some of our ground guys have those. Personally, I've been using AVS-9s for the last 12 or so years. Two years ago (maybe three?) we switched from green phosphor to white phosphor. I personally prefer the white phosphor. But to add to your point, I haven't seen any aviation "approved" night vision goggles that have a manually adjustable gain, only the units for ground use have that. I personally find that feature to not be very useful. But then again I use them while flying, not while on the ground.

No thanks, I'm totally okay with you thinking it's wrong. I'm not in the business of changing your mind. I'm just posting this so future readers understand that I'm saying that the in-game behavior is correct. There are numerous online resources (not limited to coaxial rotor systems) that explain this better than I could. If you disagree with those explanations, I would suggest taking it up with the authors of those various online resources.

I'm not sure what to tell you other than the in-game behavior is correct.

When I say flap angles, I'm referring to the apparent tilting of the rotor disc. The highest point in the tilt will be at the point of highest relative rotor blade speed, and the lowest point in the tilt will be at the point of slowest relative rotor blade speed.

Even single rotor helicopters have their rotor discs "tilted." The advancing side "climbs" and the retreating side "dives." The faster you go, i.e. the larger difference in relative airspeeds of the advancing and retreating blades, the larger the "climbs" and "dives." The maximum flap angles (up and down, or in reality "most up" and "least up") occur at the point where the relative speed of the rotor blade is at its highest and lowest, which is right out to the sides in straight and level flight.

This behavior is correct.

Yes, the sim is correct in this regard.

I am sure that I agree with some of the things you've said, but I can guarantee I don't agree with everything you've said.

Just stop. Please. I'm not making this stuff up. Use the Cobra for your Sidewinder dreams. In U.S. service, the E-model can carry Stingers. Export models of the D-model can usually carry Stingers, but not U.S. D-models. Only one or two test vehicles can carry Sidewinders. And those aren't even military, they belong to Boeing. And please believe me when I say that there are technical reasons for that as well, not just "political" ones.

Apaches and Sidewinders. Mhmm. I'm pretty sure except for the one or two test vehicles, AH-64D/E only carry Stinger. But please carry on.

The Mi-17 is the export version of the Mi-8MT, equipped with TV3-117MT engines. In fact, they are the only Mi-17/Mi-8 versions with the MT engines. The Mi-17-1V is the export version of the Mi-8MTV-1, equipped with TV3-117VM engines, as are all later versions of the Mi-17 and Mi-8. (Well, except those with the newer engines such as the VK-2500 but those are still pretty rare.) The Mi-8MTV-2 and Mi-8MTV-3 were internal Russian versions and have no direct Mi-17 counterpart. The Mi-17V-5 is the export version of the Mi-8MTV-5. From Ulan-Ude, we have the Mi-171 (export version of Mi-8AMT) and the Mi-171Sh (export version of the Mi-8AMTSh). Like the Mi-8MTV-1 and later, this series of helicopters also has the TV3-117VM engines. There are, of course, a few I'm leaving out, but there is a dizzying array of variants, as has been mentioned before.

You didn't mention this but you mean the just the AH-64D and E, not the A. And they were absolutely authorized to carry them from day one, they just never had a requirement to do so. Unlike other countries (Japan/Korea/etc.) where there was a requirement right out the gate to have them equipped.

Ha! That's one of my coworkers! Good for him, I heard he wrote a book, didn't know he had a bunch of videos.

The engine in use prior to the VK-2500 was the TV3-117VMA, which is what's in the Ka-50. Don't be fooled by the name, however, they are almost identical engines. The VK-2500 just has a few enhancements that allow it to produce more power. The two engines are interchangeable with very little work.

I urge caution. They already showed us the model that we're getting.

B/C were never built, they were just paper prototypes. ED was talking about making the AH-64A in 2007, that's how I became a beta tester tester in 2007. For whatever reason, it didn't work out, there was never a playable Apache in DCS.

It's two. Look closer.

That large one is a laser rangefinder/designator, low light/say TV, and FLIR....and well, and so is the small one. :D They installed the larger one first, and the smaller one replaced the Shkval sometime later. The larger one was called Samshit-50 or Samshit-50T, and the small one I don't know but I see it referred to as a GOES pod but that's kind of a generic term. It may have only been a testing prototype. Sounds familiar? :)

The little one is, as far as I can tell, the same as the big one, just smaller. Supposedly the smaller one was used for "navigation" but I think they were just testing both at the same time.

Absolutely true, but you can look at the model from the announcement and tell which one it is.

At the risk of sounding glib, the Ka-50 has 4 weapons stations, so the Igla racks will go on one or more of those. We could speculate about inner or outer and if they can be asymmetrical, I suppose. We also know that #25 was tested with the L370-5 President-S countermeasures suite, so it seems pretty likely that's what we're getting. That is, laser warning receiver, missile approach warning system, automatic flare dispensing, and directional IR jammers, just like what was tested on #25. BS2 already has a laser warning receiver, and the jammers and missile approach warning system were mentioned in the newsletter. Not mentioned was the automatic dispensing of flares, but one could argue that already exists as well with BS2, albeit not automatic in response to threats, just automatic in accordance with a set program. No RWR, chaff, or radar jamming, none of which were tested on #25 as far as I know, and they weren't mentioned in the announcement. The DIRCM pods and MAWS sensors can be seen on the models that were included in the announcement, but the model does not include the radar warning receiver antennas.

They posted an announcement with text and pictures. We are getting what you can see in the pictures and read in the text. If it wasn't in the text and not in the pictures, we aren't getting it. Speculating about what wasn't written or shown can be an interesting exercise, but in my experience it's a waste of time and energy. Your experience may differ, and that's cool, too.