The Cobra proposal...

[Rick50]

On 8/14/2022 at 4:26 PM, Evoman said:

From what I gathered the AH-1G was more adapt to handle Vietnam missions than the later versions because of their armament. The mini guns were used to clear out or prep LZ zones for the Hueys. 

Yes, Vietnam war changed so many different things about the US military, it affected weapon selection and development for decades, along with training and unit types... but was very clearly visible in helo armaments!!
 

 

On 8/14/2022 at 4:26 PM, Evoman said:

So regardless of the order of other variants the AH-1G will eventually have to be done to meet the Vietnam requirements for when ever a Vietnam map is done.

Agreed!!

Might be a bit of a wait for that map. There is real hardware limitations that would concern a map dev for such a map at this time... but those concerns might melt away in just a few short years. Maybe?

 

[Mars Exulte]

On 8/14/2022 at 3:33 PM, fargo007 said:

I think it's impossible to get the Z licensed by Bell USA and made into a DCS module while the helicopter is in active US service. We can dream though. 

 

  Half the modules ingame already are in ''active service'', including the specific variants we have.

[fargo007]

5 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  Half the modules ingame already are in ''active service'', including the specific variants we have.

 

Which of the specific variants are in active US service right now?  

[Gianky]

46 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

 

Which of the specific variants are in active US service right now?  

If by variants you mean the letter suffixes, well, the F/A-18C is still in service with the Marines, F-16C and A-10C are in service with the USAF. If you're talking about software suits, I'd say none of the modules are.

[Mars Exulte]

On 8/17/2022 at 4:37 PM, fargo007 said:

Which of the specific variants are in active US service right now?  

  It doesn't matter if they're in service or not... they ALL still have classified aspects to them. Neither current service, nor classification, are inherently blocks. These are all very modern 2000s variants from the US, the JF-17 is in service, the Eurofighter is definitely in service. That is not a relevant criteria. The criteria is public availability of relevant data points, and the manufacturers willingness to agree to a license. That's it.

[fargo007]

6 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

  It doesn't matter if they're in service or not... they ALL still have classified aspects to them. Neither current service, nor classification, are inherently blocks. These are all very modern 2000s variants from the US, the JF-17 is in service, the Eurofighter is definitely in service. That is not a relevant criteria. The criteria is public availability of relevant data points, and the manufacturers willingness to agree to a license. That's it.

You're right, those are the ultimate criteria.  

But an aircraft manufacturer who is actively selling a military aircraft to the biggest and wealthiest customer in the world will be highly unlikely to agree to anything that pisses that customer off, or in the slightest way jeopardize the billions that are flowing in from them.

Especially with no expectation of financial gain. 

[Rick50]

Yet many have gotten permission.

[Mars Exulte]

13 hours ago, fargo007 said:

You're right, those are the ultimate criteria. 

  Yes, I know.

13 hours ago, fargo007 said:

But an aircraft manufacturer who is actively selling a military aircraft to the biggest and wealthiest customer in the world will be highly unlikely

  This is called ''stuff that's being completely made up from my own assumptions''

 

  And again, multiple aircraft in this game ARE in active service around the world, including some of the SPECIFIC variants we have. Google, even wikipedia, will clear some of this up for you.

13 hours ago, fargo007 said:

that pisses that customer off

  Correct. The relevant MoDs are usually also involved, particularly on anything modern. I'm sure Boeing, Lockheed, et al, are more than capable of thinking about that on their own.

13 hours ago, fargo007 said:

or in the slightest way jeopardize the billions that are flowing in from them.

  See above.

13 hours ago, fargo007 said:

Especially with no expectation of financial gain. 

 What part of ''buying a license'' isn't making sense here? They DO financially gain. You give them money, they give you permission to use their name and data. Other details vary depending on contract and developer, for example some planes have been described as off limits because the license is prohibitively expensive, etc.

 

It's almost like... these are businesses... making money... and they have... systems and/or legal departments or something in place for these exact scenarios...

Edited August 22, 2022 by Mars Exulte

[Mars Exulte]

7 hours ago, Rick50 said:

Yet many have gotten permission.

  I would think that was obvious, but people keep arguing against it. These are the same kind of people that report pilots on YouTube for exposing GUBMENT SEKRETS filming themselves flying (with permission from their superiors). Was a F-18 guy a while back shut his channel down because people kept threatening to report him to the FBI/CIA.

[fargo007]

Quote

What part of ''buying a license'' isn't making sense here? They DO financially gain. You give them money, they give you permission to use their name and data. Other details vary depending on contract and developer, for example some planes have been described as off limits because the license is prohibitively expensive, etc.

 What part of "not for sale unless the US Government says we can" isn't making sense for you?  

You don't get the flight manual until they say. 

I know math is hard, but making a few thousand by licensing the aircraft to a software company isn't an ROI if you're losing the sale of a single airframe, or having the biggest contract of your life (the US Government is one the customer everyone dreams of) stalled.

 

Quote

  And again, multiple aircraft in this game ARE in active service around the world, including some of the SPECIFIC variants we have. Google, even wikipedia, will clear some of this up for you.

 

I didn't say "In active service."  I said "in active US service."  I hope that clears up the mess your straw man made. 

 

Quote

The relevant MoDs are usually also involved, particularly on anything modern. I'm sure Boeing, Lockheed, et al, are more than capable of thinking about that on their own.

LOL - This isn't Harry Potter. There are no such things as 'Ministries' involved. Boeing, Lockheed and Bell don't 'think about' something like this as much as they get authorization.

Starting with the release of the flight manual. 

The US Government determines who these companies can sell their aircraft to, and who they can't. To suggest that they play no practical role in who these companies provide detailed technical information to is asinine.

They've also determined you can see the AH-1W manual.  Which is why I said this would be the latest model we'd get.

They haven't said if or when you can have the AH-1Z flight manual.

 

It happens to be in active US service and doesn't appear to be retiring anytime soon. It's funny how it works out that you just don't see the FM until that happens.

 

[Gianky]

4 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

I hope that clears up the mess your straw man made.

Sorry, what do you mean with the above statement?

[fargo007]

17 minutes ago, Gianky said:

Sorry, what do you mean with the above statement?

When a person argues against something that wasn't actually asserted instead of what was, that is called a 'straw man' fallacy. 

 

[Dragon1-1]

I think the Whiskey Cobra would be best. It's an 80s helo, good counterpart to the Hind, not too advanced, but it would get Sidewinders, TOW and Hellfire. The problem with the AH-1G is the minigun turret, rifle caliber guns don't do a whole lot in DCS, and our infantry kind of sucks.

[Gianky]

4 hours ago, fargo007 said:

When a person argues against something that wasn't actually asserted instead of what was, that is called a 'straw man' fallacy. 

 

Ok, got it, thank you!

[Mars Exulte]

6 hours ago, fargo007 said:

Stuff

  Whatever dude @@ 

[Tank50us]

6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I think the Whiskey Cobra would be best. It's an 80s helo, good counterpart to the Hind, not too advanced, but it would get Sidewinders, TOW and Hellfire. The problem with the AH-1G is the minigun turret, rifle caliber guns don't do a whole lot in DCS, and our infantry kind of sucks.

Keep in mind that at the same time this version was in service, they did develop the 20mm cannon, and some units were sent to Vietnam for testing. Obviously these tests worked out, since, well, it would remain the Cobras gun from then on, and was even suggested as a viable gun for the RAH-66 when the custom super stealthy 20mm being developed for it was running a bit behind.

6 hours ago, fargo007 said:

The US Government determines who these companies can sell their aircraft to, and who they can't. To suggest that they play no practical role in who these companies provide detailed technical information to is asinine.

Another thing to keep in mind is that many of these companies also consider their image, and whether allowing a 3rd party to develop the thing in the first place is a financially viable idea. For example, many of these modules, such as the Hornet and Viper, can be sold to real world Hornet and Viper owning air forces to use as part of the hardware and software in their simulators. Ergo, Boeing and General Dynamics look at that as another avenue for income, with minimal work on their part. In short, not only do the governments who use these things have to grant permission, but the companies who actually own the intellectual rights to the aircraft themselves have to be on board with it. If neither of those stars align, then we don't get the toy.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Tank50us

[Dragon1-1]

3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Keep in mind that at the same time this version was in service, they did develop the 20mm cannon, and some units were sent to Vietnam for testing. Obviously these tests worked out, since, well, it would remain the Cobras gun from then on, and was even suggested as a viable gun for the RAH-66 when the custom super stealthy 20mm being developed for it was running a bit behind.

Yeah, well, the XM35 wasn't in widespread use in Vietnam (and I don't think the M197 was a thing yet). The mingun/GL turret was OK for what it was used for in Vietnam, but in DCS, it'll be underwhelming like the Russian minigun pods. Just try it, load up two gun pods on a Hind or Mi-8, turn off the 12.7mm guns, and then see if you can kill a truck before you're out of ammo. 

The problem is, even with XM35, you have four weapons you can mount on a G model Cobra: on the pylons, it's rockets or the Vulcan, and in the turret you have minigun and/or grenades. Turret weapons, if they're anything like the miniguns and grenades ones mounted on the Mi-8, will suck. With the systems being basically the same as a Huey, the AH-1G is just too similar to it. Post-Vietnam Cobras had the bigger gun, ATGMs and Sidewinders.

[Rick50]

 

So in related news...

 

The AH-1W Super Cobra Has Been Retired From The Marine Corps After 34 Years Of Service

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37149/the-ah-1w-super-cobra-has-been-retired-from-the-marine-corps-after-34-years-of-service

[Dragon1-1]

I wonder if they're going to play Farewell Tae Whiskey at the retirement ceremony...  

[ReRa]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

IMPORTANT - IF DCS Start a crowd collect action or anything that kind link it , and well be great if you send message too me.