Rick50

Not my creation, just thought it needed posting!

TSR.2, CF-105 Arrow UH-60, CH-47, MH-6, Super Tucano, A-1 Skyraider, A-4 Skyhawk, B-1B A-12 Avenger, yea I know it never entered service, but still cool. Basically think of an A-6 Intruder, but a Stealth Bomber version, shaped like a flying Burrito! RAH-66 Comanche. Obviously most of these are not for full fidelity modules... but rather are just cool subjects that would be enjoyable in a sim of some kind.

Yea, even in peacetime training, flying low to the ground, whether in fast jets, army choppers, or even civilian helos landing and taking off in non-airport locations... is really quite risky. Jets in the RAF have a speed limit when on the deck, can't recall the number but I think it was 450 knots, and they would trim the plane such that you had to push the stick forward to stay low. The idea being, that if you pass out, or get forgetful, the plane would naturally want to climb away from that super-missile known as Ground Level! If you search the history of the Royal Canadian Air Force's use of the CF-104 Starfighter in Germany, you'll discover there were MANY crashes due to the hazards of low level flight. One Starfighter pilot was flying very fast. at night, on the deck, and struck the top steeple of a church. He did not survive the crash a few miles away. Civilian helo pilots who operate in remote locations, small camps, forests, and such, usually have sketchy locations for landing, and often just grazing a cable or tree branch is to invite a hard landing or even fatalities. Tail boom hits something, hit a telephone wire, power cables, radio antenna or mast, loose debris... there's a video showing an Mi-8 Hip coming for a landing, but the wash kicks up a very large heavy tarp... which strikes the rotor blades, and the Hip wobbles to a hard landing. Long time ago I heard a story about a light observation helo during a multi national exercise, I don't recall if it was a Kiowa or Cayuse, but he was flying so low that a blade clipped the 50cal of a ground vehicle. Happened so fast, the helo crashed taking both crew to an early end. S!

So once you get bored of AI ground units... add some "extra" by getting a friend to jump into ground units in the Combined Arms module, and try engaging them using your Apache, Hind or whatever your favorite helo! Why? Because ground unit AI is limited, while a ground unit driven by human is concerned about survival, gets tricky ideas how to get a sneaky shot, can get creative about hiding. Check out the video below, and while watching, consider what it might be like with a dozen human ground units, and a dozen helo pilots, split between two factions! Growling Sidewinder AH-64 Apache | The True Apex Predator | Intelligent Ground Assets |

Gypsy, you are totally correct... but we public don't really know much of anything about the current state of the Phantom at HB. It was started some time before the announcement... but HOW much? We don't know! All we really know is the little they have told us. For all we know, it might be nearing completion and at the early stage of software testing, bug fixing and such. And maybe they've allocated more time than normal to this, investing time and money into a hopefully smoother bug-free (ish) launch that will impress. I dunno, just talkin out me exhaust port!

I'd caution for patience. ED is doing a lot overall. Step back and look at the big picture from their perspective. They didn't give you another "viper" situation, instead they learned and offered up a great launch for the Hind. And the Thunderbolt. And the Mosquito. And now the Apache. I'm sure they have some things in the pipeline for the HIND, maybe those things just weren't ready right at this moment, fully tested for all user types. I think the Hind and Apache have probably had great sales, as I also think ED has grown a lot in the last couple years. Sure, you aren't thrilled at the situation at this time, and it's your right to express disappointment, but I think it won't be all that long before you'll see improvements that you'll like to see!

Hmm. Didn't know of any tanks that have target tracking or "lock". I know they can lase distance, sample barometrics, wind speed and direction, to provide a great trajectory, use it to calculate lead, but that's different from tracking an object or image. Yea, it shouldn't be impossible to aim at a hovering or slow moving helo in a normal and fairly modern MBT. I'd expect anything like the T-64 and newer to be able to do that with a good gunner. Not familiar enough with older tanks than that. And with the new stuff in the last 10 years or less, I dunnno, I'm sure some army out there has some really nice secret functions that the rest of the civilian world doesn't know about! It's plausible that a nation that really wanted to upgrade a fleet might develop new fire controls systems for new functionality. Really though, the thing is, if you find tanks are shooting at you, think about just how incredibly vulnerable you are to Shilka's, Tunguska, TOR, Gepard and Avenger units... SOOOOO much more easy to shoot you down than some ATGM's from Main Battle Tanks!!

Yea. There was a thread discussing it. And Wags mentioned a couple things in an interview a year ago. It was announced that they are VERY early in development for a global framework "map". They did a few tests, and have decided to proceed. Will probably take several years. I don't think these will be replacing the detailed maps that we buy, but we don't really know much about their vision on that. They probably haven't figured that out themselves yet. Don't get too excited, it's not appearing anytime soon. And we don't really know if this is going to be high detail like the current maps, or just a simple outline that allows flight from one map to another. And I think the devs aren't totally sure they can do it in a way that's practical. There does seem to be more to it than this, but really it's all speculation and guesswork for us at this time.

From everything I've heard, short answer is: no. Longer answer is also: heck no. Real answer... I think nothing of the sort is being planned at this time. ED is very busy with the current Apache, other modules, the global map project, and many other things. Other Apache variants probably won't even be considered until after the current Apache is finished EA and fully complete. And probably not even then, for a variety of reasons. I mean, anything is possible but I think it's unlikely, given that they are so busy on so many levels. Another consideration is that the British MOD is very restrictive about divulging any secrets at all. The British Government and defence establishment may not give any permissions at all for such a module. IFFFF... Apache sales are super strong even 4 years from now, and there is strong desire by lots to have such sub-variants, then maybe. But I think it's more likely that other modules could get updates with more capabilities.

Very long time ago in a chat with a tanker (think it was around 1991 ?), he said that they wouldn't hesitate to send an APDS at an enemy attack helo. The theory was, they probably didn't have time or enough luck to NOT shoot something at the helo. That very high velocity gave a moderate amount of hope of a hit. Depending on exactly 'what' got it, might do very minor damage, or completely wreck the thing. Gearbox or turbine, that thing is going down, or at the very least it's heading home with one working turbine. Armored crew compartment... not even sure they'd live through that impact... the spalling bits. Tail boom... eh, could maybe carry one like nothing happened... or lose the tail rotor and need to crashland ASAP. They speculated that even a non-hit close call near the rotor, might cause enough of a vacuum or void, that the rotor could lose enough lift to cause loss of control and crash... I've no idea really, was very sceptical about that claim, but who knows? No really, I wanna know who might know! anyone aware of any tests with helicopter drones?!? If I were a gunner and saw an enemy AH, I'd send whatever shell was in the tube that instant, and follow it up with coax rounds, and then try to determine if it's time to abandon the tank or not! EDIT: So I did a search. Nope, nothing about Sabot rounds taking down any tanks by creating an air vacuum by the rotors. But... apparently there have been a few instances of tanks using their main guns to take down enemy helos: https://www.quora.com/Could-a-tank-take-down-an-Apache-helicopter

So true, making it all the more difficult for virtual pilots.

There is talk out there about this second airframe... apparently it includes wings, tail assembly and other things, said to be %70 complete. They are thinking that between that airframe, and salvaging the parts from the formerly airworthy unit, it might be doable without having to make too many new/replacement parts that are mostly long gone. Apparently 124 parts are mostly from pre-1985, when the parts mostly went out of production (because there was never going to be hundreds of '124's anyway). I think it's not only doable, but I think the global industry, once the conflict is over, would be tripping over themselves to help Antonov regain it's glory and pride with a '225 The Sequel. There are plenty of component contractors globally, who could help fill in the missing gaps, MAAA!!! Make Antonov Airworthy Again! I think in raw usability, an Antonov 124 with GEnx could possibly handle 180 metric tons ?

I think he was disappointed to learn that the EF won't feature hovering and vertical takeoff/landing while it's in Early Access... and lackof Hellfires and PNVS... I mean, it's totally understandable, let's hope TG and HB sort out these issues ASAP.

Uh... sweet score! gamer vs collector?! Hard to say... if you really want to help out the community, before you do anything, take very high resolution pictures and video of the whole thing, all the details, overall and up close. Maybe see if someone wants to do a 3d laser scan of the two sims. Then I'd consider seeing if a US Army museum wants to buy? Maybe put it up for eBay bid. Maybe put out a few feelers in these forums here... see what the market might bring you. As for DCS, yes, you "could" make it so that you could use it in DCS, but I'm betting absolutely zero of it would be "plug and play"... all of that is litterally before "plug and play" was invented. Before MS offered full windows without DOS. If you don't know DOS, probably take too long to catch up and convert this. Some people here who are regulars in the Input Output part of the forum would certainly be able to make this work in DCS... but these people have years of experience, usually have related technical skills, and have significant resources to cover the things they themselves can't or don't want to tackle themselves. It'd be like asking "so I have a dead Tesla model P... could I just take out the battery and motor, put an LS2 in it from the wrecking yard? They have one real cheap right now!". Yes, technically it's totally possible. No, it won't be a money saving project, despite the price of the LS2 from the wrecker's. And no, it won't be quick and easy... it'll be a long painful process, many challenges and hurdles, made easier or harder depending entirely on your own skills and experience, your own resources like having a large enough shop, enough tools to properly tackle sucha project. But yes, on paper it can be done. And it's been done once, very well... but Rich is skilled and experienced and knowlegable, has the tools and shop, friends that can and do actually help, has the time money and patience to see it through.

Hmm, yea that might be a more practical wpn for the Tuc anyway, considering weight and drag! I've always thought that if you combined the APKWS or similar laser guidance, with the KE of the CRV-7 rockets (Canadian very high velocity version of the Hydra) with tungsten penetrator, onto Super Tucanos with designators, could be a heck of an anti-armor punch for nations that can't afford Hogs and Apaches. Especially when cooperative ops.

Ok thanks, that makes a lot of sense!

try this thread already started:

Cool project!!

I must be missing something about this request... what's the purpose of mounting a pod without rockets?? Is it to force the player to go to an airbase or FARP to get rockets loaded, as part of the mission play? If not, then I don't "get it"

Well considering the burners are tilted downwards from waterline, then add in all that angle, and finally consider that this would all position the burner nozzles physically closer to the deck... I could imagine it scorching the deck paint! I believe the deck is painted with an extremely durable industrial paint/coating/epoxy, but could be only the "painted areas" with white or yellow paint. Well, nowdays.... just remembered Phantoms would have done this in much earlier decades, no idea what US carrier decks were like.

AFAIK it's not planned, because US Army did not use that rocket. It's apparently roughly a 2002-2005 era US Army Longbow. AFAIK, the CRV-7 is only used on UK British Army Apaches. For other users you need to look beyond Apaches, such as CF-188's and CF-5's and such. It's a cool rocket, clearly has benefits to it. But it won't appear in this DCS module. Similarly, for the same reason, we won't see Stinger air to air heat seeking, nor will we see the Israeli Spike missile that's been carried on IDF Apaches for many years... because neither was carried on US Apaches in those years.

The Canadian Army, US Army and many other units use metric like KM (Kilometre, literally 1000 meters), meters and so on, largely because of the early days of the NATO treaty in the 1949. We had to be able to work directly alongside, cooperatively, with dozens of European armies, seamlessly upon landing. We'd be needing their maps too. The radio comms to call in artillery strikes, or to report enemy tank formations accurately that everyone could be certain of, SUPER important. The MLRS rocket systems are often referred to as "grid square removers"... a grid square is basically a square kilometre. So North American armies learned the Metric system and adopted the whole thing. Except that flying is still kinda mostly Imperial units! ... So MAX and Frosty mentioned the airliner... Back in 1983, an Air Canada airliner, Boeing 767, was on one of it's early flights, and the fuel unit measurements were in Kilograms instead of the North American common use of pounds of fuel. There was one or a few mistakes in converting the numbers, as the fuel provider could only read pounds, and also a system failure on the Boeing. The result? only 45% of the fuel needed for the flight. Ran out of fuel. Fly a loaded 767 with no engines... glide to land! Read about it in the link below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider Funny part is, the plane was later fixed, and spent a very long career until it houred-out for retirement!

Yes, that's what I meant. It might already be finished from F-14 dev, but maybe not since by the Tomcat the Sparrow was less important and "better". The Phantom used the Sparrow as it's fancy missile, and was earlier version. Probably didn't work all that well either. I'm just guessing, but I also suspect that to get a successful Sparrow hit in combat may have needed some fancy coodination and switch-work to make it all work. Tactics, target ID, distance for each stage of the engagement... Figuring all that out for a module, from manuals and a couple SME's, would not be easy, and then to program that in...

Maybe they just wanna hold back, until they are ready for the timing of a big marketing push, to make a very successful EA launch sales figures? In a way that makes a lot of sense to me.... it's not like they are gonna lose out if they give us screens now, but if they can dump 100 screens just two weeks from launch, and a few vids, and so on... yea. I dunno, just a guess!

This does look pretty cool!