noted How feasible/likely is an RAH-66 Comanche module

[Tank50us]

On 4/3/2021 at 9:35 PM, SkateZilla said:

 

Ka-50 had a production run and saw service, there is enough info to develop the systems.

Su-25T, is not Full Fidelity, so you can't really use it as an example.. Systems accuracy wise, but again, had 3 Proto's and an initial 8 Unit Production run, and was a conversion of a massively produced airframe already.

The RAH-66 is a unique design, not taken from a pre-existing airframe. Only had 2 Prototypes constructed, and nearly no combat systems integrated for most of the testing.

Actually the Com. was extensively tested, and from what I understand, borrowed many systems from the Apache, and some that were developed for the Comanche went back into the later Longbows. Exactly what those were I can't say, but, I can say with some confidence that if a full fidelity RAH-66 were to be put forth, it could be done to I'd say about 75% accuracy. You'll never have 100% of course, but that's because the stealth stuff.

[zerO_crash]

9 hours ago, Tippis said:

It says that the idea was neat, but wasn't worth pursuing in the form we have in DCS (and especially not the fantasy versions that have since been teased and almost put into development… kind of a neat mirror there) — instead, they ended up effectively being used as live test platforms for stuff that went into full-production ones and into further prototype versions. The more detail you add to try to suggest otherwise, the more you manage to illustrate exactly what I'm describing.

 

See above: the concepts didn't actually survive rolling off the production line and were abandoned pretty much immediately for improved variants.

 

…but the Su-25T isn't. Please pay attention. And “unicorn” is a pretty common term for something dreamed up to fit some fantastic ideal that turns out not to be achievable or practical when it comes in contact with reality. But as mentioned, those two show that this isn't a show-stopper as far as adding things to DCS — and no, I'm not going to explain a sentence that explains itself to you. If you're going to go down the “you don't understand…” route, try not doing that in the same breath as you fail at parsing pretty simple text.

 

The Ka50´s are already from the early production line, and nothing would differ between them and the initial batch after the order would be signed. Never was a fantasy-version teased, rather an educated guess. But that already met much criticism and along with new russian laws, it´s not happening for the moment. So instead of derailing and writing your beautiful stories, come back to the real world and stay with Ka50 (BS2). Whatever the future brings, we´ll talk about it in the future. It is also apparent to me that you do not conceive what I wrote to you when stating that Ka50 became test platform for Ka52. Learn to read with understanding. I explained it before, but you fail to read. "That doesn´t mean that Ka50 was a step toward Ka52 initially.", "You also do not understand what Ka52 came out of (no, not Ka50, but a different mindset and requirements).". Re-read.

 

They did survive rolling of the production line, but it wasn´t yet an official order from the army. What part of that do you not understand?! The initial batch was already produced. And no, they were not "abandoned pretty much immediately for improved variants". You must pay attention and read what´s written to your response. You keep introducing crap that doesn´t bear any mark of the situation IRL. I already explained you once that nothing got "abandoned" and "immediately", yet you just keep rolling on the same crap. Do your homework.

 

Su25T isn´t fantasy either, as there are a couple of those operational as we speak. Good that you defined "unicorn" for yourself, Su25T is not dreamed up, it is real. Again, you keep writing crap and confusing even yourself and pretend you got an argument. If Su25T didn´t exist, it would be dreamed up. Again, it had nothing to do with "unachievable", rather change of tactics and monetary constraints. Don´t mix things up. "You don´t understand"-route is quite descriptive of you, since you keep re-writing the same fallacy all the time. Nothing that you mention bears any truth to it, nor was any of it ever a case IRL. You are plain wrong.

 

Guesstimating from your current ability to comprehend, I won´t bother answering to your future posts re-writing whatever you already tried to produce. I won´t bother. You are not fit to understand where you are in wrong, nor have the inclination to seek correct info. Waste of time for me. I already explained it all above. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

Never was a fantasy-version teased, rather an educated guess.

…in other words, a version that never existed — a fantasy version, or a frankenplane as they're so lovingly called around here. Which again shows that ED isn't nearly as sensitive to, nor DCS as sacred not to, add hypotheticals the game, never mind things that actually happened even if just barely.

 

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

They did survive rolling of the production line, but it wasn´t yet an official order from the army. What part of that do you not understand?!

The part where you on the one hand say that they weren't an official order yet, and on the other hand say that they weren't abandoned. You can't have both. The fact remains: they didn't survive. They had a vanishingly small production run and then no more were made because other variants took over, and the few that managed to stumble out the gate were used as test platforms or proofs of concept more than anything. Then they were scrapped. A decade of action in this world is “immediately”. Read up on the actual history of the development of aircraft — these or others — and in particular the actual timing of the collapse of the USSR. We're not talking about Honda Civics here. The time scale is different; the order of events is different; the life cycle is different.

 

The actual history matters, not the intent. It doesn't matter that they intended to produce more; in the end they didn't. It doesn't matter that they didn't intend to use one platform to develop another; in the end they did. But more to the point: if we allow intent to be a good-enough threshold for what gets added to DCS — and the Ka-50 (especially in its intended BS3 guise) and Su-25T show that we do — then it's not a huge stretch to allow for other intended aircraft, such as the RAH-66. Again, all you're really doing here is furthering the argument for intended developments: your main thrust is that both aircraft were intended for much more and for something completely different than what they factually, historically, ended up being (test beds, barely produced, and/or in service in vanishingly small number for a vanishingly short amount of time). If we allow for that intended reality to exist in DCS, with dozens of Ka-50:s and Su-25T:s in the air at once, then there's not a whole lot we can say in argument against the Comanche being part of that fantasy world… it really only comes down to lack of available data (possibly even with the manufacturer since they most likely never got around to testing some things).

 

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

Su25T isn´t fantasy either, as there are a couple of those operational as we speak. Good that you defined "unicorn" for yourself, Su25T is not dreamed up, it is real.

…and? No-one has said otherwise. Parse the sentence again. Respond to what's written, not something you conjure up just so you can be upset about it. The fact that you had to start attacking the poster and use these kinds of strawmen rather than arguing the point being made, only ever serves to give the real reason why you're ejecting yourself from the conversation: because the facts you keep trotting out actually end up matching what I'm saying and this is frustrating you to no end since it leaves you with no actual argument — you have to take the fallacy route instead.

 

 

[huligan]

I very want Comanche RAH-66 !!!

it's my my favourite best of the best helicopter - craft !!!

[Rick50]

 

Even if the Commanche has many systems borrowed from other aircraft, the simple fact is, it never even came close to a production version, not close to an operational version. As such, I doubt there's much of any documentation about how the computers, it's symbology and networking, would have worked. ED is demanding of it's standards and quality, and a major part of that is documentation to properly replicate the real items. This means that if the documentation or sources are lacking, to properly represent it how it would be in operational use, ED is not likely to choose to make such a module. And may even oppose a 3rd party module developer.

 

Then there is another problem: licensing. That was a Boeing-Sikorsky partnership, from a very long time ago. Their own internal documents might be... not handy. And those companies may not want to have the public playing a game with that sore loss, the loss of getting sales for a significant investment.  Also consider that right now all the American defense companies that like Choppers are currently clawing tooth and nail for the next generation of Army choppers, for troop/utility, for attack, and light scout variants. The Bell Valor, S-97 Raider, and several other new ones are all being presented as mockups with simulations to try and sell the idea to Pentagon people. The Comanche, by constrast, would be a significant step backwards in tech, even compared to the Longbow, if we only look at the proposed first variant. I believe that there's at least two brand new gunship proposals made public in the last year or two, and probably one or two more to come.

 

I know that the S-97 Raider is being very seriously considered to augment and then replace the special forces Little Birds, I king of think they'll make one variant that would do the job of both the transport and gunship Littlebird variants, meaning carry a few Tier1 operators, and have a few missiles and guns too. I'd think that the APKWS would help make that happen. 

 

I thought the Comanche was a cool heli, actually I still do! I'd be happy to welcome it as a mod for DCS. 

[Tank50us]

On 4/7/2021 at 3:45 PM, Rick50 said:

 

Even if the Commanche has many systems borrowed from other aircraft, the simple fact is, it never even came close to a production version, not close to an operational version. As such, I doubt there's much of any documentation about how the computers, it's symbology and networking, would have worked. ED is demanding of it's standards and quality, and a major part of that is documentation to properly replicate the real items. This means that if the documentation or sources are lacking, to properly represent it how it would be in operational use, ED is not likely to choose to make such a module. And may even oppose a 3rd party module developer.

 

Then there is another problem: licensing. That was a Boeing-Sikorsky partnership, from a very long time ago. Their own internal documents might be... not handy. And those companies may not want to have the public playing a game with that sore loss, the loss of getting sales for a significant investment.  Also consider that right now all the American defense companies that like Choppers are currently clawing tooth and nail for the next generation of Army choppers, for troop/utility, for attack, and light scout variants. The Bell Valor, S-97 Raider, and several other new ones are all being presented as mockups with simulations to try and sell the idea to Pentagon people. The Comanche, by constrast, would be a significant step backwards in tech, even compared to the Longbow, if we only look at the proposed first variant. I believe that there's at least two brand new gunship proposals made public in the last year or two, and probably one or two more to come.

 

I know that the S-97 Raider is being very seriously considered to augment and then replace the special forces Little Birds, I king of think they'll make one variant that would do the job of both the transport and gunship Littlebird variants, meaning carry a few Tier1 operators, and have a few missiles and guns too. I'd think that the APKWS would help make that happen. 

 

I thought the Comanche was a cool heli, actually I still do! I'd be happy to welcome it as a mod for DCS. 

but if it was released as a proper module, would *you* buy it? I get the feeling the answer is the same as mine: Hell to the yes.

[Rick50]

Ok, good question. 

 

Short answer: Maybe.

 

Longer answer:  IF it were well reviewed, and seemed to match exactly what we know of the then-development goals... and no game stopping bugs or issues... then maybe I'd consider buying it. BUT... considering that it would basically be a fictional "what if", since the real item was little more than a flying proof of airframe concept, with virtually none of the fire controls, none of the optics or flir, none of the avionics MFD pages or HUD / helmet symbology even created... then I would not expect to pay the same as we pay for say the HUGE efforts required to make a Viper Hornet or Tomcat. It would be guesswork, and while there's nothing wrong with that, I'd expect that it's true level of sophystication wouid be akin to a halfway point between FC3 level aircraft and full modules, and I'd think of a price that would reflect that... maybe $20, not the normal "complex" module pricing. Yes, I did put that number higher than the individual FC3 planes, but that's more because I'd expect it to fly with a full complex flight model, and the textures would have to be more detailed, and modeling certain systems, even considering the fictionalised nature of it, would still require work. 

 

I'd envision laser hellfires, low RCS number (yes DCS has RCS ratings for it's units, and detection ranges do take this into account), Stingers, a moving map display, and a network threat/friendly display like the Hornet has. I'd expect it to fly right, fly like the real thing probably does, with the included fly by wire computer assists. If it were truly more complex than what I describe, then yea, might be willing to pay more for that, but I'd have to consider it.

 

I could see a great mod team be able to make something like that, minus the map and threat networking display.

 

Thing is, I'm doubtful that ED wants to model a near-fictional module. Sure, it's a heli... but it's bascially little more than an airframe that flies, no weapons systems were developed beforehand. Personally, I'd love to see a Mig-31 Firefox in DCS too, complete with all black paint, and Dirty Harry desperately trying to "think in Russian"!! But I doubt that's what many would like to see in DCS, even as cool as that might turn out. Maybe as a free mod, it might become somewhat popular!

 

Thing is though, we're starting to see a lot of full fidelity modules, that are getting so complex, so many systems to manage, I think we are starting to see that the end of the tunnel is one of a fully populated air force, with all the cool fun to fly modules we really want. After the Hind, Kiowa, BO-105, Apache, ED mystery helicopter, maybe a Cobra, plus the Hip, Black Shark, Gazelle and Huey, the freeware Littlebird... will there even BE room for a Comanche ? Probably. But you see my point: many may not be interested in a semi-fictional aircraft that never got even remotely near entering service.

 

[upyr1]

I think this meme would work here- since this would be a total what if. 

[GGTharos]

On 4/6/2021 at 2:28 AM, Tank50us said:

Actually the Com. was extensively tested, and from what I understand, borrowed many systems from the Apache, and some that were developed for the Comanche went back into the later Longbows. Exactly what those were I can't say, but, I can say with some confidence that if a full fidelity RAH-66 were to be put forth, it could be done to I'd say about 75% accuracy. You'll never have 100% of course, but that's because the stealth stuff.

 

'Stealth stuff' is about 1% for the simulation.  You set a low RCS and you're done.  You're going to get 25% of it because there is no data on any sort of systems integration (in fact, there's probably next to no systems integration) and no data at all for the flight characteristics.

 

If you modeled this helicopter, to make it realistic you'd have to model it without any weapons at all.

[Evoman]

On 4/10/2021 at 10:18 AM, upyr1 said:

I think this meme would work here- since this would be a total what if. 

This is realistically the best expectation one can have for prototype aircraft.

[Rick50]

8 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

'Stealth stuff' is about 1% for the simulation.  You set a low RCS and you're done.  You're going to get 25% of it because there is no data on any sort of systems integration (in fact, there's probably next to no systems integration) and no data at all for the flight characteristics.

 

If you modeled this helicopter, to make it realistic you'd have to model it without any weapons at all.

 

Exactly.  I don't believe it was anything other than a two seat prototype rotorbird.  YES it was developed to carry weapons into combat, with lots of systems... but I think it got cancelled before any of those systems were mounted to an airframe, before it carried any live seeker heads, before it had any electrooptics installed, before the HUD or helmet mounted display even got anything more than basic flight information... and forget documentation, ED likely wouldn't be given any, and there might not even be documentation of any real worth that got published even inside hte company, or that wasn't considered a company secret.

 

So yea, 95% of a module on the Comanche would be fantasy guesswork, which might be very welcome in Dungeons and Dragons, but would be shamed into crying in the corner by all the hardcore rivet-heads demanding absolute realism... so upyr1's choice of meme is absolutely accurate!

 

Here's something to ponder: I was just on a professional paid dev team forum, a VERY large flight sim developer for a different simulation, civilian. One of the devs was asked about obtaining detailed data about the airliners, so they can make their airliners behave exactly like the real ones. His response would be surprising to most: 

 

Quote

Q: Or is it still complicated for you to have access to the technical data of these new aircrafts?

 

Quote

A: yes near impossible. While in the past most relevant data were available in printed or pdf, now all is only elctronical available and not even pilots have access to those data. A-350/A-330-NEO products (available on ther platforms) are simply based on guessing.

 

!!!

 

That's for cIViliaN aiRLiNerZ !!!1!

 

Honestly... considering this, it's now even more incredible to see the really complex modules like the Hornet Tomcat Viper and so on being in the state they are!

 

Don't get me wrong, it kinda makes sense for manufacturers to be tightlipped about their products, just show the REAL data when an airline wants to buy a bunch, then show them the real fuel burn rates for this route with X passengers and Y cargo... but it's kinda surprising that the pilots don't have full access... I guess the electronic flight bag apps are limited to what the pilots know at a specific point or request ?!?

 

Anyway, if civil sims have such trouble getting data about airliners, what chance does anyone have of getting data about a stealth combat heli prototype project from the 1990's in 2021 ? I'd say about less than zero. But who knows, maybe some retired project engineer will show up one day and share a mountain of raw data!! And I'll win the lottery!

Edited April 12, 2021 by Rick50

[Rick50]

 

Just saw this, pretty good short doc about the Comache:

 

 

[22TUKUM]

New here and new to DCS. I thought I was picking up 2 apache sims last week - but turns out they were RAH-66 Comanche sims. These were used 20+  years ago for research and testing before the program ended . Sticker says "Comanche Portable Cockpit".  There was no software. Just hardware/cockpit.  Anyone know if this would work with DCS?  Or would it take a village to get it up and running? Is this more of a "gamer"  or "collector" deal?

sorry if i didn't follow comment rules or photo rules..

[upyr1]

I would love the Comanchee and the Mi-28 but due to how Eagle does things I think both would be community mods

[Tank50us]

Just now, upyr1 said:

I would love the Comanchee and the Mi-28 but due to how Eagle does things I think both would be community mods

Although a third party team could probably pull it off, especially if someone on that team knew someone who worked on the Comanche program

[upyr1]

10 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Although a third party team could probably pull it off, especially if someone on that team knew someone who worked on the Comanche program

outside of the Su-25T which is low fidelity I've yet to see any indicator that Eagle would sign off on a third party module of a prototype

[Evoman]

11 hours ago, 22TUKUM said:

New here and new to DCS. I thought I was picking up 2 apache sims last week - but turns out they were RAH-66 Comanche sims. These were used 20+  years ago for research and testing before the program ended . Sticker says "Comanche Portable Cockpit".  There was no software. Just hardware/cockpit.  Anyone know if this would work with DCS?  Or would it take a village to get it up and running? Is this more of a "gamer"  or "collector" deal?

sorry if i didn't follow comment rules or photo rules..

Without wiring schematics it would be easier to just rewire the controls and buttons to an arduino contoller just like the ones used in homemade cockpits.

[Rick50]

On 3/6/2022 at 8:15 AM, 22TUKUM said:

New here and new to DCS. I thought I was picking up 2 apache sims last week - but turns out they were RAH-66 Comanche sims. These were used 20+  years ago for research and testing before the program ended . Sticker says "Comanche Portable Cockpit".  There was no software. Just hardware/cockpit.  Anyone know if this would work with DCS?  Or would it take a village to get it up and running? Is this more of a "gamer"  or "collector" deal?

sorry if i didn't follow comment rules or photo rules..

 

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.

 

[Clyber]

On 4/5/2021 at 3:16 PM, The_Chugster said:

Ok follow up question, would you guys want ED or a third party to make a Comanche, knowing alot of it would be made up from current AH-64D avionics, guesstimates and feature expectations?

 

Obviously it wouldnt be a super serious module but do we want something like this in DCS?

 

Hell Yeah !!! 

Its a pitty this helicopter was cancelled and never was taken in to service.   I would like to see it in action. I have asked ED  this same question a while ago because i tought Empire did a great job back then with the game Enemy Engaged  RAH66 vs Hokum  but there are no plans to develop this module sadly.

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by Clyber

[Rick50]

 

There IS one recent change though... ED no  longer has it as  an absolute requirement to be 100% real world full fidellity... I can't recall exactly, but it was due to recognition of a little bit of fudging that would be needed to ensure one particular module to be completed. 

So maybe not impossible for the Comanche... but still unlikely, as it was never even close to production, there would be more "fiction" in a Comanche module than raw "fact". but not impossible!

[Clyber]

Yeah we dont want all types of unrealistic situations in DCS but i was  just fantasizing what it would be like to have that as a module in DCS and also to have it operational in real life. The Comanche would be a game changer. Some compair it to the ivictus 360 and say this is the replacement for the RAH66 but thats not even close

[Rick50]

Is it super important to have a paid module of the Comanche though?

 

Pay money, expect full fidellity. Impossible for Comanche due to it never getting near the finish line.

 

HOWEVER... there are several great "free mods". The A-4 Skyhawk. The UH-60, the F-16I Sufa are just a few examples.

 

A Comanche RH-66 high quality free mod could bring a few advantages:

-actually getting completed

-not require any permissions from the original aircraft manufacturer

-people wouldn't feel cheated out of a full fidelity, as there was no money exchanging hands

-this could lead to a good team that could go on to develop other projects. An example could be the C-130 mod that is now a full fidellity module in development

 

Probably the biggest downsides to a good mod would be:

-team members abandoning the mod after 3 years after completion

-difficult to keep the team working on it once it's "fully developed", to keep it working with every new DCS World update. This is a problem facing many mods.

[Clyber]

Hmm .. thx for compairing the advantages against the disadvantages. Its a eye opener and seems there is so much to evaluate before they would consider begining with the module. 

But like you said we have some great free mods and they always kept them updated and running with every update, wouldnt they be able to figure something out as well for the Rah66 mod ? 

 

 

[NineLine]

I agree that this sounds perfect for a community mod, I cant imagine there is enough here to do a DCS level on, but noted guys. Thanks.

[Rick50]

On 2/8/2023 at 5:49 AM, Clyber said:

But like you said we have some great free mods and they always kept them updated and running with every update, wouldnt they be able to figure something out as well for the Rah66 mod ? 

 

Ah well, I'm no "DCS historian", but I believe that there have  been some good mods that got abandoned, and aren't working in several years, because no one kept up with DCS World updates and changes.

And those that DO try to keep them updated, sometimes struggle to accomplish that. Either due to a lack of enough time to actually get changes done... or it's an actual challenge to figure out the problem and find a solution that works.

 

But despite that, I think such a project holds promise!