Westland Wessex HC.2

[RazorbackNL]

A DCS version?? Oh yes, PLEASE!!!

[Northstar98]

+1 Though would prefer HAS.3 or HU.5

[RazorbackNL]

+1 Though would prefer HAS.3 or HU.5

 

 

Would go with those also, as long as it has Wessex in the nametag :thumbup:

[SUNTSAG]

+1

 

For me any British airframe Jet or Helo is long overdue in DCS. I would welcome the Wessex with open arms. IMHO opinion it would alleviate the monotony of the constant cycle of US and Soviet aircraft and Helos.

 

I am not complaining, whinging or moaning just a simple wish and observation from across the pond. :thumbup:

[Northstar98]

+1

 

For me any British airframe Jet or Helo is long overdue in DCS. I would welcome the Wessex with open arms. IMHO opinion it would alleviate the monotony of the constant cycle of US and Soviet aircraft and Helos.

 

I am not complaining, whinging or moaning just a simple wish and observation from across the pond. :thumbup:

 

+1

[joey45]

indeed, we can only have so many US airframes before it gets boring.

[Baco]

+1

Yes please!!!

[mkiii]

I look forward to seeing the manual pointing out what the "Relief tube" between the crew seats is for. ;)

[Northstar98]

That's.

 

A.

 

Sikorsky.

 

 

 

blah blah blah it's a Sikorsky built under license.

 

Except the Wessex has a turboshaft (the H-34 got that later) and if you're going naval HAS.3 a surface search RADAR...

[mkiii]

But then the argument will go - "That's a General Electric T-58 built under licence blah blah blah"...

 

 

The Wessex and the RR Gnome engines were different beasts to the original designs. Suck it up, sometimes American (or should that be Russian - at least in Sikorskys' case?) designs can be improved upon ;)

[Northstar98]

But then the argument will go - "That's a General Electric T-58 built under licence blah blah blah"...

 

 

The Wessex and the RR Gnome engines were different beasts to the original designs. Suck it up, sometimes American (or should that be Russian - at least in Sikorskys' case?) designs can be improved upon ;)

 

Oh I was talking about Napier Gazelle :lol: Found on naval HAS.1 and HAS.3 AFAIK

 

For me I more interested in the HAS.3 (surface search radar, ASW) but there's the definitive HU.5 - that one has the Gnomes, and is probably the better one to go for in DCS, seeing as ASW is non-existent (well apart from dropping ordnance on surfaced submarines that cannot react defensively at all) and the HAS.3 cannot simultaneously detect and attack, making the HU.5 the better one to go for.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Northstar98

[Northstar98]

It's the same aircraft no matter what power plant is sitting in the bracket.

 

I guess you're of the sort who can't tell the difference between an Arleigh Burke and a Sejong the Great class then? ;)

Edited April 5, 2019 by Northstar98

[mkiii]

It's the same aircraft no matter what power plant is sitting in the bracket.

Really? an aircraft with (for example) 2x1107hp RR Gnome turboshafts is the same as 1x1500hp Wright Cyclone engine?

 

 

 

Lunatic: I'm not familiar with the Navy kites - only have experience of the RAF HCMk2 ones, - but all that ASW kit might be interesting - if we get submarines to play with. Did the HA3 have the nuclear depth-charge? ;)

[Northstar98]

Lunatic: I'm not familiar with the Navy kites - only have experience of the RAF HCMk2 ones, - but all that ASW kit might be interesting - if we get submarines to play with. Did the HA3 have the nuclear depth-charge? ;)

 

Not sure about the nuclear depth charges, I'll have to dig around...

 

As for the underwater environment, a HAS.3 probably isn't the best bet purely due to the fact that ASW is non-existent in DCS, apart from attacking surfaced submarines that cannot react defensively in any way. We have no underwater weaponry - no torpedoes, no mines, no depth charges and no ASW sensors. We don't even have an underwater environment, we have a floor and transparent water, but below that all there is is a surface and the floor.

 

It's a shame because the currently present Kilo classes are beautifully modelled, fully animated (all masts/antennae, control surfaces, tube doors and even the hatch for the reloading adaptor), it even has 2 SLCMs present in the model viewer - the 3M-54E and 3M-54E1 - both submarine launched ASuW cruise missiles. But totally non-functional now.

 

I guess the best variants to pick are the HC.2 or HU.5 (though they're pretty similar - the HU.5 is a battlefield troop transport, with folding rotor blades, which was also used for SAR, but again, very similar helicopters - it would be great if a module could provide both variants).

 

The thing with the HAS.3 is that it could either carrier detection equipment or weaponry not both - so if you wanted to take weapons, you'd forfeit your ability to actually find the thing your hunting.

[mkiii]

HU5 the commando? That's the last Wessex type I ever got to handle - it was pristine compared to how I remember our RAF kites... I suppose that probably would fit the DCS Ethos, along with the HCMk2 better than a sub hunter ;) I only recently - with purchase of the Carrier a/c became aware that the sea was only a couple of metres deep overall. I became very well aquainted with the sea-floor trying to land on or avoid hitting the carrier. ;)

[Northstar98]

HU5 the commando? That's the last Wessex type I ever got to handle - it was pristine compared to how I remember our RAF kites... I suppose that probably would fit the DCS Ethos, along with the HCMk2 better than a sub hunter ;) I only recently - with purchase of the Carrier a/c became aware that the sea was only a couple of metres deep overall. I became very well aquainted with the sea-floor trying to land on or avoid hitting the carrier. ;)

 

Yes as far as I know the HU.5 was the commando variant for the Royal Marines, and later on a maritime SAR platform - essentially the same capabilities as the HC.2 but with folding rotors.

 

Both are probably better bets than the HAS.3 - due to the aforementioned changes that need to happen in DCS itself to facilitate ASW to any degree.

 

And yeah, having a sea floor is definitely a step in the right direction, but better bathymetry is what's needed for submarines (an actual underwater environment, no matter how basic. It would be better if the sea floor had a more accurate depth map (data is fairly easy to get) and a level of detail of the mesh of the pre 2.5 era Caucasus map would be more than necessary. But I digress...

[Grievo]

Would love a Wessex. I agree the HU.5 is probably the best choice though.