Kev2go

yes indeed. AGm45A has really limited range the F4E could use AGM45B. the extra range would be appreciated.

the 1992 F117 Flight manual (Dash 1 ) lists various supplements associated with it, and it says the dash 34 ( non nuclear weapons delivery) is classified "secret". So unless weapons manual got declassified since that publication date there won't be available information to model its weapons systems, something needed for a combat simulator like DCS. Its probably why ironworks are only doing a F117 for a civil aviation sim.

arc 231 is present in the CH47F block 1. its the radio that makes use of the satcom antenna which is there on external 3d model. ITs just the Ch47F does still retain 1 ARC 164 ( U2). ARC 231 is the 6th radio according to the operators manual.

disagree. it was about various radios seemingly being replacements of the ARC164 not specifically about the 220. i mentioned the 220 because thats what helos didn't initially have that and i thought it was analogous to how other aircraft like A10 only retained Arc 164 as backups or how in other platforms entirely replaced ARC 164 for ARC210's . For helos i guess i was wrong about the 220 since its HF and it seems the UHF & VHF replacement is the ARC 231 in rotary wing department. Oh ok US army didnt convert all AH64D's to AH64E's. that was just thinking out loud.

IF i compare 1980s Ch47D or UH60A manuals to thier 2000s publications i see an arc 220 in the place of where 1 of the ArC 164 panels used to be. ARC 210 which is installed A10C II is UHF no? and its primary radio. ARC 164 is only left as a backup. the older A10C had ARC 164 and some other older radio which i cant remember. Uh60M doesn't seem to have ARC 164. Only recall the manual citing Arc201D and ARC 231 radios. Ah64D we have is circa 2005-2008ish. ARC 164's replaced by ARC 231's in the first AH64E's in 2012. Not sure if refitted to Ah64D blocks as i don't have newer publication to personally reference or verify. The F16C is from an earlier timeframe then the in game chinook its supposed to have ARC 210 radios, they were being fitted around suite 4.2 and onwards but for apparently ED chose older ARC164 due to lack of documentation of ARC210 integration within that specific platform. F/A18C iirc have 2 ARC210s.

The patch notes stated that Ch47F rwr sounds were fixed. because they had sounds borrowed from Ah64D's APR39A v4? https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/stable/2.9.8.1107/ "Fixed. RWR using sounds from AH-64D module" I haven't noticed this. APR39A v1 still appears to have the same female synthetic voice giving audio callouts as Apaches RWR where it should be more robotic sounding male stephen hawking type voice. Reference Oh58D kiowa warrior module or Uh60L community mod.

i wonder why a circa 2011 ch47f even has arc164? Its an old radio. According to forecast international the last unit was delivered in 1994 . its Just interesting because in contrast even the analog Uh60L's and Ch47F's processor, the CH47D replaced Arc164's for ARC 220's by early 2000s. is there any reason to keep arc 164 as an additional backup radio? instead of just having another pair of newer radios? Honestly surprised a radio of that generation could do away with analog control panel and be fully digitally integrated to be instead accessed via MFD/CDU.

id also like to see new cargo system copied over. where you can load up certain stuff into the helicopter itself and see the physical asset inside of the vehicle. Would hope to see actual quantity of infantry seated inside the back of helicopters for immersion.

sure but i would say that could be mostly attributed due to the technological limitations of the time preventing feasibility of such fidelity that is available today. By this logic 3rd parties that pushed the boundries with certain systems modelling within DCS , namely radar and EW/RWR and set new benchmarks , and in turn anything not caught up to the same standard is now fake n bake. IT was a great trainer for the F/A18C. i could fly the legacy day 1 release. even familiar with ATFLIR and the shared weapons systems. just not having new touchscreen UFCD, extra pylons and shorter station time really, so from my POV pretty great for so called "fake n bake" systems, especially for its time. Flying the DCS hornet is mostly more fun not because i view a legacy is as a better platform then a super hornet but just because of the combat environment. Although to be fair this thread was far more convincing then the arguments you or anyone else that would make me not want to see the Super Hornet any time soon.

yeah wonder what janes or vrs had for source material.

if ED were to do a Uh1H update. it should follow KA50 v3 or A10C 2 current existing owners get a free 3d model exterior and interior cockpit upgrade. a paid upgrade DLC with discount for UH1H owners gets updated UH1H with AN/ASN175 GPS unit and AN/APR39 v1 radar warning receiver. May as well since the already existing huey has composite rotor blades. which is something that was not fitted until early 90s ( earliest revision i found that had these references to composite rotorblades was in the 1992 revision of the 1988 manual) . IF anyones read the Uh1H/V manual published 1988 ( 1999 revisions) theyl see ASN 175 GPS operation described. below is a cockpit of a Wisconsin national guard UH1V taken in 2008. Also note that the radar altimeter is place to the right of attitude indicator for both pilot and co pilot. looking at TM 11-1520-210-23 UH1 electronic maintenance manual ( 1996 publication revised 1999) this is the configuration the radar altimeter equipped hueys should have, even if they weren't equipped with APR39.

IF thats your idea of classification. ( which its not accurate) then i could say on that thinking that 95% of modules in DCS are based on "leaks".

nearly all of the modules be it by ED or 3rd parties are based on documentation that is marked with ITAR/FOUO restrictions. SO i don't know what they mean by "public" as none of them with such markings are technically supposed to be "public". So i don't know what legal loophole they use to use for any such modules, hence why its a moot argument to even bring up against a potential module that is no different in said regards to sort of documentation needed. There's nothing more for either of us to say unless you are privy to the behind the scenes inner workings on these particular matters within these development teams.

Makes me wonder what documentantation does ED lack besides operators manual? Via google search you can find TM 1-1520-280-10 ( UH60M operators manual) published 2017. its weird they find documentation on a Ch47F ( It was only supposed to be a 2007 variant but then ED stated on sale page its a circa 2011-2013 Ch47F implying they found more up to date manuals) but cant find it for a UH60M which entered operational service in a similar timeframe as the Ch47F's? Ultimately both CH47F and Uh60M have a similar level of avionics. Neither have any weapon systems apart from door guns. The chief difference between the two is just category they fall into, Chinook is heavy lift, Blackhawk medium lift.

Because there is the uh60L mod. So even if a proper uh60L module would have higher detail in 3d texture and systems modelling I'd rather just get a modern glass cockpit variant to match ah64d and ch47f.

belsimtek doesn't exist anymore. F4e was on pipeline and even had early developmental screenshots shared by bst but was scrapped but its ok because it ended up coming from another 3rd party anyways. Ah64a was also once on pipeline had some old 3d models of the cockpit but its evident that was scrapped in favour for ah64d. If any cobra is done I hope its going to be an ah1w instead of ah1s

Hopefully this is the next rotorary project to come from ED now that ch47f is out.

i can understand why someone would be more hyped for the Italian Chinook . Not because its Italian but because it happened to have additional features such as a Infrared camera or the weather radar. But like you say most will still be happy since its still a chinook and a modern service variant with digital avionics.

Likely not. As ED seems to have instead decided to model a us army based ch47f not the ich47f 3d model teased in the dcs 2023 and beyond video

TM 1-1520-271-10 as pertaining to the US army operated CH47F (2011 publication) only mentions M60D and M240H defensive armament options. M134 is apparently only used on MH47's by 160th SOAR.

that is assuming HB would have the budget to hire a hollywood actor to do voice lines.

Yes indeed. The navy pilots were not as challenged I think since aim9ds were already were entering operational service at the start of operation rolling thunder, wheras air force didnt get first aim9 improvement till around 1968 with aim9e which of course was still inferior to the navy's aim9d. Not to mention the navy's f4j which entered service around the same time as f4e had a pulse doppler radar.

Yeah I think going backwards players can more greatly appreciate early 4th gen, like F14 alot more. Never mind 21st century gucci tech of the other teen fighters, cold war gen 4 still feel like super planes compared to the likes of the era of aircraft like the F4 . Me and a human WSO flew the phantom got annoyed about challenges of the F4 decided to take a break. Hopped back into F14A ( since that particular CW server had that on team blue as the most modern aircraft) and it was literally night and day difference. I got double ace in 2 sorties in spite both of us being very rusty on the tomcat. Growling sidewinder was 100% correct, that when contrasted to the F4 the F14 feels like its an F22 raptor, although granted the F4E is more versatile in its air to surface roles.

IM not sure this can entirely be blamed on people being used to post cold war 21st century upgraded gen 4's. Looking at the Vietnam experience IRL lots of pilots had issues trying to adjust to dealing with slower but more nimbler soviet aircraft,. Part of the issue was training. to learn to energy fight better, but even that was seen as a stopgap solution since the veterans of Vietnam had in turn helped define the trends and requirements of what would become 4th generation designs, and the real solution were technological, better radars, missiles, and aeronautical redesigns to make aircraft be more maneuverable so they could win both 2 circle and 1 circle turn fights. Energy was not forgotten as most 4th gens were supposed to have 1:1 or greater T/W ratio, meaning they were even better in the energy department relative to thier predecessors. https://etd.auburn.edu/xmlui/handle/10415/595 turn fighting is rewarding even doing guns only in a Jet like the F14A tomcat, at least against " gen 3". You feel very maneuverable against them but you still have enough T/W to regain your energy fast enough, and not feel underpowered slug. IMO the F14A only ever felt underpowered when compared to gen 4's.

Even the "1974+" F4E block 45 has its limitations. The moment the F4E block that has TISEO , DMAS , and Pave tack comes out most will flock to that, because that will be alot more usable as a strike fighter for 1980s scenarios. Id wonder what the sales of the F4E module would be if "1970s block 45" was the most modern iteration of the phantom promised. I think if HB does a separate F4J module (or F4S for those wing slats) at some point id be willing to bet that will probably be alot better received for those who prefer to do dedicated AIr to Air over strike fighter stuff just because aircrew will have a pulse doppler radar to work with, and wont have to worry about being forced to merge all of the time because they couldn't detect a mig due to ground clutter.