Fudd Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 I was wondering if AH-64's and AH-1's will be able to carry AIM-9's. Also in real life H-47's and H-53's have crew operated 50 cal machine guns located both starboard and port sides of the crew windows (H-53's also can mount the 50 cal on the aft ramp), will they be included in 1.2?? The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
GGTharos Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 No, they won't be. In case you haven't noticed, they aren't even used in real life - the 'winders I mean, by helos. Yes, there have been test-firings. These test firings showed the relative awkwardness of using a dogfighting missile on a helo. It is prefferable to use the stinger stacks instead. They're much lighter, and their performance is much better in the low-altitude arena where the helos are meant to operate. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Fudd Posted September 30, 2005 Author Posted September 30, 2005 Do you know where you go the data on the AIM-9's because I specifically remember AIM-9L's being loaded on AH-1's and also being stowed on the ship while I was deployed on a LHD (helo carrier/amphibious ship) during a West-Pac deployment. 1 The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
wolf8218 Posted September 30, 2005 Posted September 30, 2005 *instigator mode ooooh, mr "i play computer sims so i know it all" got bitchslapped by the newcomer..way to go fudd! 1
Guest Cali Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 *instigator mode ooooh, mr "i play computer sims so i know it all" got bitchslapped by the newcomer..way to go fudd! Almost pissed my pants after reading this......lmao
SUBS17 Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 No, they won't be. In case you haven't noticed, they aren't even used in real life - the 'winders I mean, by helos. Yes, there have been test-firings. These test firings showed the relative awkwardness of using a dogfighting missile on a helo. It is prefferable to use the stinger stacks instead. They're much lighter, and their performance is much better in the low-altitude arena where the helos are meant to operate. The Apache doesn't carry AAMs anymore from what I've heard, they rely on CAP now instead. But personnally I believe in war they should carry them. [sIGPIC] [/sIGPIC]
504MrWolf Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 *cue tumbleweeds stage right....................whistling wind. SMACK DOWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TERRY TATE STYLE..........! www.VVS504.co.uk www.lockonskins.co.uk
GGTharos Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Do you know where you go the data on the AIM-9's because I specifically remember AIM-9L's being loaded on AH-1's and also being stowed on the ship while I was deployed on a LHD (helo carrier/amphibious ship) during a West-Pac deployment. Yep, I'm aware of the Navy using 9's on their AH-1's. They have a massive stock after all ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 *instigator mode ooooh, mr "i play computer sims so i know it all" got bitchslapped by the newcomer..way to go fudd! Oooh, mr. 'I can't even type one sentence with proper punctuation' pipes up. Good job ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
britgliderpilot Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Do you know where you go the data on the AIM-9's because I specifically remember AIM-9L's being loaded on AH-1's and also being stowed on the ship while I was deployed on a LHD (helo carrier/amphibious ship) during a West-Pac deployment. Re 'Winders being stowed on the ship - don't some of the LHDs carry Marine Harriers? Just asking. Anyway, seeing air-mounted .50 cals on the choppers might be fun - ED have said they may be working on the DSHK, which is effectively a Russian tripod-mounted .50 cal. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
MBot Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Anyway, seeing air-mounted .50 cals on the choppers might be fun - ED have said they may be working on the DSHK, which is effectively a Russian tripod-mounted .50 cal. Yep, door mounted MGs might be cool. But without the AI understanding the principle of surpression fire it is rather pointless ( so we would need surpression fire first, wich btw would come in handy on several aspects of the sim ).
Fudd Posted October 1, 2005 Author Posted October 1, 2005 To answer your question BGP, yes the aviation element of the MEU does usually bring Harriers with it. In Jan 02 when we deployed the Harriers had been downed due to engine issues. It was fine with me 'cause their noisy, undepedable and take up space. The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
GGTharos Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Fudd, have the AH-1's actually ever used the 9's? Ie. live fire ... and what do ya think of eventual replacement of the AV-8's by F-35's? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Fudd Posted October 1, 2005 Author Posted October 1, 2005 The good old Joint Strike fighter, ya I think the AV-8's have too many issues with maintenance and dependability. Our deployment was not the only one they missed due to engine problems. About the AIM-9's, I have never seen a live fire exercise but I have seen them actually loaded out on AH-1's. The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
GGTharos Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 I understand - I mean if they have been used by AH-1's in combat :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
wolf8218 Posted October 1, 2005 Posted October 1, 2005 Oooh, mr. 'I can't even type one sentence with proper punctuation' pipes up. Good job ;) that or mr. "i take on every forum post i write like my college term paper" seriously, you can't (OOOH I USED AN APOSTROPHE) get any lower than insulting some one on their grammar skills, give me a break. i was only joking around anyways.
Brit_Radar_Dude Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 Fudd said It was fine with me 'cause their noisy, undependable and take up space. Ooooh, them's fighting words laddy! They're versatile, scary (if you are the bad guys) and as the Marine's own 'em they will turn up where and when the poor grunt in contact wants 'em. Navy attitude - Sorry, no CAS today we have some much more interesting ships to attack. Air Force attitude - Sorry you are too far away from any of our airbases. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Sorry Death, you lose! It was Professor Plum....
Fudd Posted October 2, 2005 Author Posted October 2, 2005 BRD- As a former Marine and an Aviation mechanic, I can't really say what a grunt wants or needs, but I am sure that the F-18's flown by VMFA squadrons are more dependable for CAS than the Harriers. The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
Brit_Radar_Dude Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 Valid point, provided that the Navy is willing to risk parking one of its limited number of flattops (12?) where the Marines want it so they can operate VMFA F-18's. Whereas your Harriers can operate off your 8(?) LHD's, and 5(?) LHA's which I am guessing are much more likely to be in the vicinity. In fact it kinda reinforces MY point about the Marines whole attitude to having their own integrated air force. They just don't seem to trust the Navy or USAF to be there when they need them, and having read about historical inter-service rivalries in the US and other countries, I don't blame 'em! OK, maybe I'm a little biased here what with being a Brit - we have a soft spot for the Harrier as we invented it. ;) But I suspect that (even with Congress doing all it can to try to force a joined up US military) my point is still valid about operating platforms being where you need 'em, when you need 'em. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Sorry Death, you lose! It was Professor Plum....
britgliderpilot Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 Ahh, Harriers . . . . aren't they wonderful? They should have been replaced a long, long time ago with a new airframe. There's been at least one Harrier replacement program cancelled by the Government, and I really don't think it should have been. Just to put it in perspective, the Harrier design process started in 1957. The Hornet design process started - with the YF-17 - in 1972. That's a fifteen year time-lag, not including the various updates that were made to the YF-17 design to create the Hornet . . . . it's a big difference. I feel that some of the criticism levelled at the Harrier is unfair - yes, it's tricky to fly and maintain, but thats the payoff for its STOVL capabilities. It's what you've got due to the circumstances, so you don't whine, you do something about it. I've seen no British whining about the Harrier - we just think it's cool, and have used it to great effect. I've seen plenty of whining about the USMC Harrier . . . . . and I'm not entirely sure why. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
Fudd Posted October 2, 2005 Author Posted October 2, 2005 I've seen plenty of whining about the USMC Harrier . . . . . and I'm not entirely sure why. THe Marine Corps budget is less than the other services- this corresponds to the use and reuse of things even when they should be totally replaced. For example, you can find many H-46 airframes that have bullet hole patches in them from Vietnam. Another example H-53 engines GE-T-416A's have been reworked so many times that many of them are terribly under power. I have replaced engines two and three times just because the reworks didnt pass power checks once installed. The bottom line is that Marines keep using things long after they break. Thats that can do attitude! The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
Fudd Posted October 2, 2005 Author Posted October 2, 2005 Valid point, provided that the Navy is willing to risk parking one of its limited number of flattops (12?) where the Marines want it so they can operate VMFA F-18's. Whereas your Harriers can operate off your 8(?) LHD's, and 5(?) LHA's which I am guessing are much more likely to be in the vicinity. LHD's and LHA's operate as part of the Carrier battle group. Even though the carrier is usually a few days or so ahead or behind the smaller LHD group (usually consists of an LHD and two other amphibious ships), carrier fire power is never two far away. (This is the case in non wartime situations). The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
Recommended Posts