Kev2go

The most interesting photo ive found is of a Wisconsin National Guard Uh1V taken in 2008. It appear to have APR39A v1 RWR installed judging by how the scope indicator looks, compared to the original APR39 V1. APR39 v1 was limited to just having strobe indicators of SAM threats similar to much older RWR's that existed in SEA for fixed wing jets, wheras APR39A v1 was capable of displaying threats with alpha numerics, and included synthetic voice to call out threats ( IF reference point is needed see RWR in use in the OH58D module or UH60L community mod) https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Army/Bell-UH-1V-Iroquois-205/1386330 The latest manual i found was of the final 2005 revision of the 1988 UH1H/V operators manual, which is also when the last UH1H is retired from active duty use. (although there are national guard units where Uh1H and Uh1V manage to stick around longer) and said 2005 manual only still includes the old APR39 V1 references but not APR39A v1. So i am left wondering if this was an unofficial field mod if its not documented in the manual or if National guard have seperate manuals after Hueys left active duty service.

didn't have doppler navigation systems. The DCS H has a lot of equipment normally utilized on the V models as well, like the radar altimeter, which was not often seen on H models in US Army service. On the ASE suite side, the only common piece was the APR-39; not even the sugar scoop and infrared suppression plates were seen that often. Bear in mind that the UH-60 was taking over the bulk of transport/logistic duties in this time frame and UH-1s were being relegated to second line units, so the limitations (as we see them) weren't considered a massive deal. From what I know, the DCS UH-1H is closest to the configuration utilized in El Salvador, as I've seen references that those aircraft were equipped with radar altimeters, IR suppression, and ALQ-144s. I can only guess the flare packs were included in an effort to abstract the protection given by the disco ball. Yes hueys were on thier way out. I know uh60 was the intended replacement but i wonder why bother replacing metal rotors with composite rotor blades after the end of the cold war? I remember seeing videos of the dcs uh1h in initial release that it didn't have radar altimeter or countermeasures system , that these got added further in development. So with that in mind i think the lack of asn128 doppler nav or asn175 cugr, or the apr39 rwr can be attributed to belsimtek deciding development of extra features wasn't worth the time based on the $$ sales they had, rather then it due to not being common. Which is unfortunate, because otherwise the dcs uh1h is a 1990s era helicopter excluding the m21 armament system from the short body hueys.

I may have to self correct myself. IF we count the 3d model of the door gunners its a late 1990s huey, due to the type of body armor they wear. The door gunners in Uh1H module appear to be wearing PRU60A body armor. Airsave was a survival vest adopted in the late 90s? (AIRSAVE manual publication is dated 1999) but aforementioned manual has body armor referenced with in that can be worn underneath the survival vest ( or without it like in DCS ) The Door gunners PRu60A is only a soft armor type although the manual also had a frontal ceramic plate addon for PRU60A called PRU 61, which isn't present in the crew on DCS version. IF they had the add on ceramic plate. FLight helmets. Pilots and door gunners have SPH4B helmets which did not get adopted until the early 90s, as a replacement for the earlier SPH4 ( which was retrofitted for NVG mounting in the 80s) Although from my understanding SPH4B's weren't around that long, since a few years later after SPh4B, the HGU56P was adopted into service, and appears to be widespread by the time GWOT kicked off in the early 2000s. HGU56 is what you see in the 3d model of aircrew in the 21st century helicopter modules such as the Ah64D and OH58D. Although actual mounted NVG's are not modelled on the SPh4B ( presumably due to old age of Uh1H module) if it ever did get a updated 3 makeover the pilots should be wearing AN/AVS 6 aka ANVIS 6 night vision goggles mounted on their helmets. Those would of already been going into service since at least the late 80s ( probably earlier adoption for 160th Night stalkers) , and would of almost certainly phased out all PVS 5 systems for aviators by the 90s, even for the flying remaining legacy platforms like the UH1H.

Basically a early 90s Huey. Ignoring frankenstein features like m21 armament system being mounted on a long body huey instead of the short body hueys ( uh1b,c and m) or m130 chaff/flare dispensers which are only mentioned in eh1 manuals ( electronic warfare variant huey) , but even then it's mounted on fuselage rather then tail. To this day it's a mystery what developers source was on m130s mounted on the tail. Composite rotorblades not tested until late 80s. The earliest references of them on the uh1h/v operators manual is in a 1990 revision of the 1988 publication.so maybe composite rotorblades are only being available for replacement of metal rotors circa gulf war 1. Night vision compatible cockpit is circa 1980s same with apn209 radar altimeter ( although not all hueys had it). Wire strike protection system is standard issue circa 1980s, as is the forward nose of the huey with the 2 caps where its not used but present as a provision to install sensors for the an/apr39 V1 RWR. the RWR scope display would be installed where the radar altimeter currently is placed, although there were other configurations as per electrionics confugration manual where both radar altimeter and RWR scope display could be present in a different cockpit arrangement ( and would be preffered anyways because the cited configuration allows 2 Radar Altimeters for co pilot and pilot) A mid to late 90s uh1h on the other hand would be expected to have an/asn175 cugr gps device. Thats my biggest gripe with uh1h. It lacks any real navigation systems, and has an inadequate defensive suites for a late cold war battlefield. I would have argued even for the 1980s it's very backwards to still be relying on vor ndb and adf as your only navigation systems, when every other major Helicopter aviation asset in US army ( including modernized cobras) was at least using a ASN 128 Doppler navigation suite as its primary nav source with radio beacon aided navigation like VOR only being a backup aid if said doppler navigation system failed . Some UH1H's allegedly had this system retrofitted as well pre ASn175 CUGR GPS. In similar timeframe that army hueys got the cugr gps system USMC UH1N's got combined doppler GPS navigation, an/apr39 v2 rwr and by the 2000s when gwot came around the uh1n's got ale47 cm suite and missile warning systems to make it more survivable in a modern battlefield. Tbh UH1N navigation and defensive systems are better then what even us army uh60a and uh60L's had in the comparative timeframe.

if thats the only difference could ED get around Russian security laws by using documentation acquired outside of the country that is specifically meant for a export version? Isn't that how they were able to do a mi29 9.12? Or was that old enough they could use Soviet era documentation?

yeah bump ns430 need to have support for such maps.

seen a 2009 published MI35M manual circulating online. and a 2008 technical supporting manual, but irrc those were export manuals since they were in english

Aside from the obvious , bigger payload of weapons and gas, the biggest difference was simply having the touchscreen UFCD which could if necessary be used as a 4th display and used for other things which was nice because the Hornet isn't as intuitive as the F16C or F15E ( swapping through different programmed per preference pages via hotas) Otherwise id say its very similar functionality to the legacy, and there aren't any massive technical leaps with block 1. stuff like the UFCD could have been modernized into legacy Hornets if the Navy really wanted. the Towed Decoy would of also been an appreciated feature. Legacy was supposed to have that via external hardpoiint mount at some pint verus the Super hornets internally carried system but that was canned from F18 roadmap. Another neat difference i recall is being able to use SA Format ( they call decided to call pages formats in Super Hornet) to lock a target without needing to use the dedicated Radar Format on one of the other displays. But i'm not sure if that was a new SH feature that legacies didn't have IRL or if that's just because MSI is undermodelled in the DCS legacy hornet.

i don't recall ever coming across legacy hornet tacmans either But then again even tacpack Superhornet weapon systems procedurally from what i recalled was virtually identical to legacy features. Either they used legacy hornet tacmans as a stand in and hoped no one would notice or the F/A18E-F tacman they had for a block 1 super hornet really was similar to how Legacy hornet functions. Or they used Boeings avionics handbooks. Although i personally have not come across Greybooks ( legacy) or goldbooks ( super) myself either.

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