Polychop Simulations OH-58D Kiowa

[79Au]

Will the Kiowa come with additional weapons like M134 miniguns or the GAU-19? In my opinion many players would appreciate some more firepower when dealing with DCS infantry units.

[NeedzWD40]

2 hours ago, 79Au said:

Will the Kiowa come with additional weapons like M134 miniguns or the GAU-19? In my opinion many players would appreciate some more firepower when dealing with DCS infantry units.

The OH-58D never used anything other than the M296 machine gun, ATAS, Hydras, and AGM-114.

[79Au]

It can carry the GAU-19, they tested it if I'm not mistaken. So an M134 should also be possible, maybe even 2 per station for a quad configuration.  People like experimenting with loadouts and weapons. It would be cool (and realistic) if we had the same choices/options as the IRL customers. 

[tomcat_driver]

2 hours ago, 79Au said:

It can carry the GAU-19, they tested it if I'm not mistaken. So an M134 should also be possible, maybe even 2 per station for a quad configuration.  People like experimenting with loadouts and weapons. It would be cool (and realistic) if we had the same choices/options as the IRL customers. 

https://sobchak.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/gau-19b-su-oh-58d-kiowa-warrior/

That'd be nice for sure!

[NeedzWD40]

16 hours ago, 79Au said:

It can carry the GAU-19, they tested it if I'm not mistaken. So an M134 should also be possible, maybe even 2 per station for a quad configuration.  People like experimenting with loadouts and weapons. It would be cool (and realistic) if we had the same choices/options as the IRL customers. 

They tested the GAU-19 in the early to mid 00s and the weight was too much. The modified GAU-19/B was approved at the tail end of the 58D's service to support the then-upcoming F upgrade. I've never seen operational usage of either the GAU-19 nor the M134 on the 58D, though there was some usage with the 134 and the older A/Cs. This was not widely used due to weight as the older A/Cs struggled with a typical combat load. No foreign user has opted for anything on their Ds outside of what the US Army has used. The .50 and Hydras are more than adequate for light gunship duties, as evident by the fact the operational users of the D haven't seen fit to change them out with other weaponry.

In short: no, not realistic.

[79Au]

Depends how you define realism. To me realistic means "plausible" or "possible". It carried the GAU-19 IRL, so that's not just realistic, it's an actual, real loadout, even if it wasn't used much. An M134 is smaller and lighter, so where's the problem, it's definitely realistic. All you need is to attach these guns somehow, and hook up the cables, in essence all guns that were used on AH-6, UH-60 etc. could be used on OH-58. A little bit of artistic freedom can go a long way to make a module more interesting, that's why I'm asking for "experimental" loadouts or whatver you wanna call it. I just think there's a demand for that, there's tons of mods that add more weapons to planes, and it would be well worth the effort after all the hard work on FM, system logic and so on. So if there's an existing quad hellfire rack on AH-64, why not add it to OH-58 too. Nobody is forced to use it, but it would double the fun for others.

[Lace]

20 minutes ago, 79Au said:

Depends how you define realism. To me realistic means "plausible" or "possible". It carried the GAU-19 IRL, so that's not just realistic, it's an actual, real loadout, even if it wasn't used much. An M134 is smaller and lighter, so where's the problem, it's definitely realistic. All you need is to attach these guns somehow, and hook up the cables, in essence all guns that were used on AH-6, UH-60 etc. could be used on OH-58. A little bit of artistic freedom can go a long way to make a module more interesting, that's why I'm asking for "experimental" loadouts or whatver you wanna call it. I just think there's a demand for that, there's tons of mods that add more weapons to planes, and it would be well worth the effort after all the hard work on FM, system logic and so on. So if there's an existing quad hellfire rack on AH-64, why not add it to OH-58 too. Nobody is forced to use it, but it would double the fun for others.

But possible is not realistic, almost anything is 'possible' given enough time, money and resources, but that doesn't mean it is realistic.  It would be 'possible' to mount just about anything to a KW (why not AGM-65? Why not 40mm grenade launchers?  Pretty much anything could be made to work given the necessary operational requirements), but just look at the fuss kicked up when APKWS was requested for the Viper.  Very much possible, plausible, and realistic IRL, but still knocked back by ED.  I know PC get to make their own decisions, but they have limited resources and this project has already dragged on for literally years.  IMHO they should just focus on what is fitted IRL by KW operators and finish the product, without wasting effort on experimental loadouts which very few would actually use.  Quad Hellfires?  Would you like any fuel to go with your helo?  Why not eight Hellfires and get a Chinook to sling load you to the fight? The KW is in essence a light-weight recce platform with some self-defence or CAS capability, not an attack helicopter.  I suggest the Apache might be more up your street if that is the experience you are looking for.

[79Au]

40mm grenade launchers, of course! Great idea! But I hate to disappoint you, triple rack Mavs haven't been used operationally on helicopters, sorry.  

I can understand that the purists aren't interested in additional weapons but they're a minority. Weapons are one of the main features of a combat simulator, and adding weapons is rather simple, especially if a similar weapon already exists.

I'm sure it would be very well received, and I think ED already said they're going to emphasize on the sandbox aspect of DCS. And trust me, nobody's going to have fun with the M296 in DCS. I just want to prevent potential frustration among the more casual players. And it doesn't need to come at release, a couple months later is perfectly fine. Keeping the hype train going you know.

[Nahen]

4 hours ago, 79Au said:

 So if there's an existing quad hellfire rack on AH-64, why not add it to OH-58 too. Nobody is forced to use it, but it would double the fun for others.

Because the OH-58D wouldn't be able to fly with it?
Because people develop modules based on the technical data of real machines? Because, although it's not obvious to everyone, DCS is a SIMULATION and not an arcade game?

Edited January 19, 2023 by Nahen

[Nahen]

24 minutes ago, 79Au said:

I'm sure it would be very well received, and I think ED already said they're going to emphasize on the sandbox aspect of DCS. And trust me, nobody's going to have fun with the M296 in DCS. I just want to prevent potential frustration among the more casual players. And it doesn't need to come at release, a couple months later is perfectly fine. Keeping the hype train going you know.

The day ED goes into massive Counter Strike-type fun will be my last in this "world". In this day I apologize BMS, or I'll stop playing with modern warplane flight simulators until someone else decides to do something that will be a simulation and not an arcade game.
ED don't go this way.

[Lace]

32 minutes ago, 79Au said:

But I hate to disappoint you, triple rack Mavs haven't been used operationally on helicopters, sorry.  

 

Well aware thank you, but it is 'possible', just untested and unfielded, so by your logic, why not?

[79Au]

I think my suggestion about the GAU-19(/B) is reasonable, let's see what the PC devs say. It would make many many people happy, and I'd say adding weapons is one of the more motivating, and revenue increasing tasks in module development. Please Polychop 

[tomcat_driver]

8 hours ago, Lace said:

But possible is not realistic, almost anything is 'possible' given enough time, money and resources, but that doesn't mean it is realistic. 

[Lace]

1 hour ago, tomcat_driver said:

Haha, yes, I probably could have worded that better! 

What I meant was that while almost anything is technically 'possible', that does not make it a realistic outcome.

[NeedzWD40]

11 hours ago, 79Au said:

It carried the GAU-19 IRL

Unit, date, deployment? Outside of safety tests, there was no operational usage. Again, the testing was in support for the F upgrade, which shaved a couple hundred pounds off the empty weight. Only a handful of the modified GAU-19/Bs were delivered for this test routine. If you went to any operational unit and checked their TOE, you wouldn't find the GAU-19 on the list.

The reason is that the OH-58D always struggled with weight, especially at the end of its service life. The GAU-19/B still clocked in at about twice the weight of the M296 and brought with it a number of other problems. The M134 is a similar situation, except now you're also reducing the caliber and thus your range and power. In light of this, the M296 was more than adequate for the job, and the saved weight could be put into fuel or munitions (and maybe the crew could have Big Macs for lunch instead of a small fruit cup).

12 hours ago, 79Au said:

So if there's an existing quad hellfire rack on AH-64, why not add it to OH-58 too.

Won't clear the ground, in addition to the aforementioned weight problems. Somewhere I have a picture of a 58D with a M261 rocket pod and the edge is literally centimeters shy of the ground.

12 hours ago, 79Au said:

in essence all guns that were used on AH-6, UH-60 etc. could be used on OH-58.

Sources? Test beds don't count, because otherwise there's a lot more than you might be aware of. Off the top of my head: 20mm cannon in place of copilot's seat, TOW launchers with sight above copilots head (this was so heavy they could barely takeoff), 7 cluster rocket pod launchers, 6 cluster rocket pod launchers (same as the 7 shots on UH-1), 7.62mm gunpods, M296 on the starboard side, DAGR pods on the M272 rails, and FIM-43 launchers in streamlined housings. These were all aviation test loadouts that never attained operational nor safe usage and most were on the older A/C model (in preparation to arm the at the time upcoming D model).

[79Au]

Wow, cool! You know a lot about this little helicopter and it's weapons, maybe a bit too much  I just don't understand why some are fiercly against more choices and possibilities. The more casual players that don't frequent the forums don't share this view for the most part, as far as I can tell.

edit: The Apache rack was a stupid example, I admit it, but in principle it does make sense to me to make existing weapons available to new modules, especially if it's just a single line in a .LUA file (M261)

Edited January 20, 2023 by 79Au

[Nahen]

3 hours ago, 79Au said:

Wow, cool! You know a lot about this little helicopter and it's weapons, maybe a bit too much  I just don't understand why some are fiercly against more choices and possibilities. The more casual players that don't frequent the forums don't share this view for the most part, as far as I can tell.

 

Maybe that's why we're against it because we consider DCS to be a SIMULATOR of real machines and not a act up Counter Strike  in plane.

[TheGhostOfDefi]

3 hours ago, 79Au said:

but in principle it does make sense to me to make existing weapons available to new modules, especially if it's just a single line in a .LUA file (M261)

Well this is not ArmA here. The Integration or even small changes are connected with a proud amount of work most of the Time.

Furhter, the limitations of certain capabilitys and their perfomance are what gives them their character! If someone wishes a Kiowa on steroids: Apache..

p.s. This comment wasnt meant passive aggressive, just read it with neutral voice. 

[tomcat_driver]

1 hour ago, Nahen said:

Maybe that's why we're against it because we consider DCS to be a SIMULATOR of real machines and not a act up Counter Strike  in plane.

Don't exaggerate.

[Nahen]

2 hours ago, tomcat_driver said:

Don't exaggerate.

I'm not exaggerating. Do you want to fly planes and helicopters in which you will use "fantastic" rockets, cannons, bombs, etc. - "fantastic" i.e. those that specific planes and helicopters have never used / transported. I think that's how - you want to play some arcade game and not a simulation. The fact that, for example, during the Vietnam War, in order to balance asymmetrically armed aircraft, toilet bowls were mounted on catches or additional fuel tanks filled with concrete, does not mean that they should be included in the battlefield simulation, that supposedly is a DCS. Exactly the same, in my opinion, are the elements of armament that have not gone beyond the testing and trial phases for a given type of aircraft/helicopter.

[tomcat_driver]

53 minutes ago, Nahen said:

I'm not exaggerating. Do you want to fly planes and helicopters in which you will use "fantastic" rockets, cannons, bombs, etc. - "fantastic" i.e. those that specific planes and helicopters have never used / transported. I think that's how - you want to play some arcade game and not a simulation. The fact that, for example, during the Vietnam War, in order to balance asymmetrically armed aircraft, toilet bowls were mounted on catches or additional fuel tanks filled with concrete, does not mean that they should be included in the battlefield simulation, that supposedly is a DCS. Exactly the same, in my opinion, are the elements of armament that have not gone beyond the testing and trial phases for a given type of aircraft/helicopter.

I sure do want to have the possibility do whatever I want. If I mount a stinger in my Apache, what do you care?

[Swift.]

8 hours ago, 79Au said:

Wow, cool! You know a lot about this little helicopter and it's weapons, maybe a bit too much  I just don't understand why some are fiercly against more choices and possibilities. The more casual players that don't frequent the forums don't share this view for the most part, as far as I can tell.

edit: The Apache rack was a stupid example, I admit it, but in principle it does make sense to me to make existing weapons available to new modules, especially if it's just a single line in a .LUA file (M261)

 

On the M261 example alone, its more than just adding the external model. Think about the rocket zones, KW would normally be using just two zones for the 7 shot pods. How would you have the extra zone for the 19 shot pod modelled? I doubt there are any manuals or examples around of how that works, so would you just make it up?

Hopefully that highlights how some of these things are more complicated than just sticking an extra CLSID into the lua.

[Nahen]

13 minutes ago, Swift. said:

On the M261 example alone, its more than just adding the external model. Think about the rocket zones, KW would normally be using just two zones for the 7 shot pods. How would you have the extra zone for the 19 shot pod modelled? I doubt there are any manuals or examples around of how that works, so would you just make it up?

Hopefully that highlights how some of these things are more complicated than just sticking an extra CLSID into the lua.

That's why I avoid mods with a wide berth...

[NeedzWD40]

13 hours ago, 79Au said:

You know a lot about this little helicopter and it's weapons, maybe a bit too much  I just don't understand why some are fiercly against more choices and possibilities.

My father's brother's cousin's nephew's college roommate knew somebody who knew somebody involved with the AHIP program in the '80s as well as some involved in TF118 back in the day.

The reason for being against these additional weapons is that without any real data on employment, you're guessing as to how they were integrated into the aircraft. The documentation only covers the authorized and approved weapons loads, not fantasy or test loads. If you throw in guesswork, then anything becomes possible: you in essence have ~1600lbs to work with, which means everything up to and beyond a B61 is theoretically possible. Even if you dial it back to say, TOW, you're still trying to guess as to how such a weapon would be integrated into the MMS and fire control.

FYI: they did actually employ M261 pods a couple times during TF118's deployment, but this involved removing the MMS and a severely reduced fuel load. This loadout was abandoned in short order due to the performance inhibitions (~1050lbs for the rockets + ~500lbs for the crew leaves only ~200lbs available for fuel when removing the MMS). It worked because they basically just told the weapons computer they had 38 rockets onboard (the 58D never had the AH-1E/F/AH-64's RMS).

6 hours ago, tomcat_driver said:

If I mount a stinger in my Apache, what do you care?

Get an appropriate variation and it's part of the suite. Most examples are from the AH-64E series, which is markedly different from the variant simulated in DCS. Alternatively, a DJP from Mitsubishi would fit, but you're going to have to give up your CMWS and flare packs for it. The testbed A model had significant issues with Stinger integration in the 80s; there's a document available on dtic.mil that's distribution A describing how they integrated it. Among the issues identified: no way to cue the seeker; no way to cage/uncage the seeker; no integration with the FCS (gross safety issues as a result); difficulty in determining lock status; and a host of other issues.

Find the (open source) documentation for how the weapon is integrated to the aircraft, then make your case. If you desire to make fantasy loads available, then perhaps DCS is not the game you're looking for.

ATAS on the other hand was an approved loadout for 58A/C/D models and it was also widely hated. The words described to me at one point were "yuk ATAS, what a POS!"

[Scott-S6]

21 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

 If you desire to make fantasy loads available, then perhaps DCS is not the game you're looking for.

While I agree with the sentiment, BS3 has opened that door for better or worse...