Blackjack_UK

Does this mean that they now work properly? They didn't before...

Mate, it's the internet. *Any* hat tip is appreciated ;)

No apology needed - You weren't being rude or coming across as picking a fight, you just had a different opinion. Thanks though, and in turn I hope I didn't come across as more arrogant than I actually am...

Jeez. How could I forget the Scout? Especially from my own unit. (Must be getting old) But 2? I thought we lost 1 Scout to the Pucara (probably), 1 Gazelle to an own goal (Sea Dart from a Type 42) and 2 Gazelles to ground fire... Willing to be proven wrong (And digging through memory, did we ditch a Scout after a tech failure? But recovered it and the crew fine?)

It is. It's also a logical place to put it because it requires that batteries to be turned on to work (from in the cockpit). And of course you want the batteries turned off again afterward as well.

Bit late to this party, but yes. The Gazelle is a huge disappointment - I learned to fly on the real one and then did another 500 hours on it operationally before going on to other types in my 7000 odd hours. If I'd tried to do the things that the Polychop model allows I'd be deader than a very dead thing. I love having it available but it's definitely a game model, not a simulator.

Gentlemen (assuming - please forgive me if I'm incorrect in that) First of all, Mikeck, I appreciate the compliment and recognition. For a living I spent quite a few years driving 10 tons of helicopter with a dozen Royal Marines in the back at or below treetop height in all weathers, often operating from small moving decks. We absolutely knew that we were the very best at what we did, even if the stovies thought different. We also frequently operated single pilot so no support for navigation - we had to aviate, navigate and communicate... I'm not actually denigrating my former colleagues on fixed wing ops. I was always happy to have RAF and RN fast mover support, partly because in a helicopter you *are* very vulnerable and secondly because I was always confident that their recognition skills were very good and I was unlikely to be on the wrong end of a Sidewinder or burst of 30mm. To be honest, that wasn't always the case with some of our NATO colleagues whose presence often made our perceived threat level ratchet way up. I appreciate that exercises are way different to actual combat, no matter how close the rules make them. But exercises consistently showed that fighter pilots would adhere to the RoE, which required a visual ident (good) but then fail to extend and engage with a standoff weapon, but instead attempt a gun pass (not good). They would consistently fail to correctly interpret the helicopter movement, and would consistently overcommit and be unable to recover before hitting the (exercise) ground. Because helicopters can change height rapidly *without* changing attitude. So that was a tactic we would use. In all my operational flying the RoE were broadly the same, and the chain of command to get authorisation to shoot, other than in the Falklands, was lengthy and painfully slow. God alone knows how frustrating it must be for a fast jet pilot to watch his advantage being eroded by the second as he waits for permission to engage. He's still boring in on the target, he's got lock, he's waiting...waiting...waiting...OK, clear to-nuts, inside minimum engagement range, switch to guns and continue...missed, turn and descend, Christ he's lower than BANG! You can see it, can't you? One last point for Zhukov. You're right about the stats on jet to helo combat. Except for one important point. You're talking only about successful jet vs helicopter engagements. Because they're the ones that get reported. In the Falklands there were quite a few unsuccessful jet vs helo engagements - Argentine Mirages and Skyhawks against our Wessexes and Gazelles. While we weren't blasé about it, we also weren't that worried because we could dodge them most of the time. But the Pucara scared the crap out of us because it was nearly as slow and agile as us. And it had a couple of big cannon in the nose. We never came up against them because our fast jet pals took them out on the ground... Of course we're also looking at different scenarios. If we're talking IRL then the chance of full scale conflict with another sovereign state remains mercifully small. More likely by far to be up against insurgent or non nation-state forces (like Daesh) with little aviation capability or limited conflict with nation states like, say, Iran whose air defence capability is likely to be seriously degraded by first strike Wild Weasel and standoff attacks. And that's when those RoE will be more rigorously enforced because there may be a UN mandate to satisfy. (Ask anyone who did ops in The Balkans for example).

Errr, no. Personal experience based on about 7,000 hours of military helicopter flying in the Royal Navy and Royal Marines followed by consultancy for different manufacturers, integration programmes following German re-unification and competitive flyoffs (including DAC sorties against fixed wing adversaries). Many of my best friends are former fast jet drivers and they'd agree with my statement as well. And in recent years the most notable fast jet vs helo engagement was indeed BVR. It was also a very messy blue on blue... So I think you'll find RoE will require positive visual ID as well as a go clearance from command.Which puts us right back at the helo having, if not an advantage then significantly less disadvantage.

Going back to the initial article, look at the dates. At that stage visual ID before engaging was still a mandated strategy after the number of blue-on-blues in Vietnam. Then you'd get one F4 blasting past the bogey in Zone 5 for a snap ID and calling the shot for his wingman who would be 20 miles or so out and with a radar lock already. Also of course radar and missile technology have massively improved since then. But fighter pilot psychology hasn't. In fact I'd respectfully suggest that average USAF jet jockey is now more gung-ho than his Vietnam era equivalent. So the chances of getting sucked into a knife fight with a nasty helicopter pilot with nothing to lose are significantly higher...

Not with ease. Not at all. And if the helo has half decent A2A capability (even a .50 cal or a minigun) then the jet jockey has the opportunity to be in a lot of trouble really quickly...

That's how you land any helicopter on a ship. And half the time you stick your head out the window to get a better ground reference (or your aircrewman hangs out the door and tells you the stuff you can't see...

From personal experience... Stovies are intrinsically ego driven and look down their noses at anything that isn't a fast jet. So their instinct is to go for a guns kill. Chopper pilots are intrinsically dirty fighters. And we instinctively go for...terrain kills. Saves the government the cost of a missile and the other guy is just as dead. Coax a fast jet in tight and you will almost always run him into the cumulo-granite. Plus nap-of-the-earth flight makes you a difficult target to lock with BVR weapons as you can be slow enough to get lost in the ground clutter. And when that jet pilot dives on you he still needs to pull up... Or eject. I can't say where we did it for another few years, but we got our kill ratio up to better than 3:1 in our favour against fast jets and we did not have guided missiles.

Fixed, and with a nicer model too. (I think) Thanks, folks.

That's interesting, and explains my "it all goes tits-up when you make violent manoeuvres" comment earlier. Not sure that's how it works in IRL, but knowing it's a limitation here is a BIG bonus. So thank you.

Nearly 3000 hours on Sea Kings, though Commando variant rather than a pinger. Happy to consult as well...

You can make the AP throw a wobbly with, for example, violent changes of attitude while autohover is still engaged... Deselect Autohover, deselect *all* the stab buttons then reselect them and all will be cool.

Hi, You can choose Outpost and Road Outpost in the mission editor, they show on the map and they can be placed where you want. But they don't appear in the mission, even if they are targets... Definitely did before 2.5.6. Thanks.

Navigation lights (port/starboard) light up the whole side of the aircraft rather than shining outward. Shouldn't the Shkval screen have a brightness control? Or have I simply missed it? And +1 on the autopilot and turn on target buttons not lighting.

God yes. And your point is perfectly valid - it'll obviously make life harder for non Russian speaking newcomers. I guess I was aiming my comment at the (majority) experienced users on this forum...

It should also be noted that the switches are in the same place in the new cockpit, so surely by now everyone knows where they are? (And will have most of the important ones mapped to a HOTAS button anyway)

Yes. It's the first module I bought (back when it was just Ka-50 Back Shark and DCS was a glint in Oleg's eye) and it's the only one I really use. In spite of spending hundreds of pounds on several others. The Gazelle is good but is just a trainer to me (because it's what I learned to fly a helicopter on). The Huey and Mi-8 don't really have missions or mission configs that light my candle so until the Hind arrives it's Black Shark all the way...

Yep, works fine on current version of DCS World. With a couple of tweaks. You need to go in and edit triggers on Mission 4 and Mission 5 - the support choppers land fine but nothing else happens, the reason being that the trigger for the team to disembark is set for the helicopter being <3 feet above SEA level. And it isn't. Adjust the trigger to being <3 feet above GROUND level and it works a charm.# Oh, and while you're messing with Mission 5 you may want to change your flight loadout to Anti Personnel rockets rather than the standard HEAT warhead. You'll see why...

Trying to send you PMs but they don't appear to be going as my "Sent" folder stays empty... English former military pilot and MAOT (like JTAC) operator. No real accent so either RP or Home Counties English. Cheers, Simon

You're a star, thank you. Reading the notes it doesn't do exactly what I want...but it's probably close enough until ED do some proper reworking.

I could be interested in this as well. Room for a Black Shark? Someone has to do SEAD for you after all...