Kev2go

Only because there were so many m60s and thier door mounts for helicopter use in circulation that it took a long while to replace them all? Us army didnt start mass adopting m240s until the tail end of the 1990s. There is no technical advantage of an m60 over a m240. It's only to be used for Vietnam nostalgia. Or i guess larping being shafted by your armorer, being unlucky enough to have your specific helicopter in the aviation regiment equipped with the last handful of heavily worn out m60s in circulation in 2000s?

i thought it was a US based Ch47F? i looked at the US army 2011 manual. It says either M60D or M240H machineguns can be used, so i do hope that just because ED said its a "2007" Ch47F does not mean its only limited to the M60 door guns.

In the trailer the ch47f was only shown m60 door guns. Do chinooks not use m240's in the 21st century?

yeah NVG needs adjustment its long overdue. I dont see why NVG in DCS all look like monocular vision, I dont know of any platforms that have Monocular devices., most if not all platforms would be using binocular aviator goggles. for US aircraft We would have AN/AVS6 goggles for helicopters, or AN/AVS9's for fixed wing, and even looking at the more modern helos where you can see the pilots head in cockpit.. are all represented as having binocular night vision goggles. AH64D is AVS6, Mi24 pilots model has what looks like the GEO-ONV1 binoculars. So in short the NVG image should be reflected to look as such from the wearers POV.

Flares is Kinda of OT for the bug report thread, but i can easily point out Your attempt at satire post would of actually held some weight if what you implied was actually true. You wont find M130 countermeasure dispensers ( and associated control panel) on any US army huey in any time period. IF it did there would of been countless photographs of them being equipped with such in combat service plus more importantly referenced in primary source documents like manuals. Anyways its a shame no EGI CDI or An/AAR47 IR missile warning from a Uh1N slapped onto a UH1H, because " its a still a huey or something",

Whilst i agree it would be nice to have a properly slick huey, and still mount M60's without requiring the gunship configuration . However the wire strike protection system appears to be universal if your looking at 1980s era ( or later) hueys. The OP pictured huey is clearly an earlier production/ Vietnam configuration UH1H given it lacks RWR "blisters" for mounting APR39 sensors on the front cone section of the airframe, lacks the windows behind the pilot.

i hope the CH47F we have has datalink modem. IRRC ED had said they are basing it off a 2007 Ch47F. I could only find a 2011 publication, So im not sure what the earlier 2007 Ch47F didn't have, if its same avionics and only a minor software or flight control system upgrade. Now the system the Ch47F has is not a proper datalink with automatic real time updates like Link 16, but from my understanding it works similar to the Longbow IDM.

i would point out that the issue with huey besides needing a cockpit and external model facelift, is that it ideally to also have multiple variations of the Uh1. Im not talking UH1N since its a different service aircraft, but just from the single engine army hueys. The long bodies Hueys ( Bell 205 aka Uh1D and Uh1H) to my knowledge were never used in gunship configuration. Only the bell 204 ; the Uh1B/C/M ever saw the forward facing miniguns, rocket pods, and thier associated weapons aiming systems in US service. Only some foreign operators adopted them on UH1H like the Aussies. As usefull having flares is on the huey, I am also not familiar what source material was used to give the Uh1H countermeasure dispensers because that also is not referenced in any US army based manuals nor the Aussie Bushranger manual. According to document ( work order ) MWO 55-1520-210-30-48 dated 1980 , the AN/APN 209 Radar Altimeter seemed to be exclusive to the Uh1V ( dedicated medivac that derived from Uh1H). The work order states that any Uh1H's installed with AN/APN 209 shall be redesignated to UH1V. There is also other configuration for the Uh1H itself looking at the 1988 publication ( with revisions up to 1999) like Doppler GPS navigation based system, or alternatively AN/ASn175 GPS system with data cartridge, or even optional AN/APR39 RWR installation, but from what i gather APR39's were seemingly installed in medivac configuration Uh1V, rather then the standard UH1H. So to summarize, the Uh1H we had in DCS was a franken Huey to begin with that had a mish mash of features from various Huey models and from various eras, thus would at the very least necessitate to split the module to a minimum of 2 versions. A UH1C/M for gunship configuration, and the UH1H/V for Slick and medivac roles. A simpler alternative is to have 2 Uh1H versions. Australian "bushranger" UH1H to allow gunship configuration, and a then a US army based Uh1H pure slick that would have some more modern features like the GPS suite to differentiate from the Australian based Uh1H.

There aught to be. With a focus being on expanding Utility roles in DCS, with CH47F and C130 modules, maybe its a time to give UH1H a cockpit and external model refresh. That and a updated Damage model. IF the huey has a hard landing it has a tendency to blow up, whereas with AH64, i have survived hard landings ( by that meaning avoiding spontaneous combustion) that would have evaporated a huey.

yeah UH1H needs a cockpit and exterior model refresh. black shark has gone through multiple updates and the A10 had been got a 2.0 update in recent years. Uh1N is different enough where it needs to be its own module. As an aside what utility helos in general need is to have visibility/ animation of seated troops in the interior. Its not really immersive having troops load up into your helo, disappear and be invisible inside the helicopter.

It is still fictitious in the context of being in a UH1H. The manual you reference TM 55-1520-219-10 is for the Uh1B, not UH1H. I had no reason to ever think at looking at UH1B manual considering we have UH1H model. US army Uh1H manual didnt have any reference to any sighting system period given they didn't seem to use the long body hueys as gunships, but the Australian UH1H manual ( the so called Bushranger) did. Hence thats what i posted, which was the different pattern reticule that still had the same designation XM60/M60 But this just demonstrates why there sometimes aught to be multiple variations of a given aircraft included within a module, to avoid creating a franken piece that has a mish mash of features from various models that a specific model didn't have IRL. Or i guess it did, but just not in US military service.

its unfortunate its not the 9.13. lacking a jammer is less the ideal ( even the current less the stellar simulation of ECM) , when all other contemporary opponents have them, and as pointed out some 9.13's were modded with R77's which would also make an aircraft more competitive against Fox 3' carrying birds. However what else can be said then " it is what it is". This is most capable soviet/russian aircraft ED can simulate, so this is what the community has to settle for. I hope that at least R27ER/ET are compatible with the 9.12 and it wont just be the shorter ranged 27R/T.

You dont get very far on vipers internal fuel alone, even less so if you have such draggy loadouts of taking both Triple mavericks and Triple Mk80 series bombs. This is only something youd ever use in a single player situation if your taking off from an airfield and have some practice targets on a range next to your airfield. ON the Hornet you can still take a centerline tank for extra gas and still have 2 pylons on the wings left for A/G ordinance. The Viper on the other you could take that small centerline tank, since its better then just going in on that tiny internal fuel capacity, but given the Viper doesn't have an Internal jammer, if necessary you are compelled to take centerline for the ECM pod, which in turn only leaves you necessity for 2 EFT's which also means further limiting its A/G ordinance carry. SO in short the F/A18 is more flexible and carries more when you take practical considerations like additional fuel for Mission distance and Loiter time. Not really the the same dilema for A10 or Strike Eagle pilots.

ED has made some improvements in their radars as well even if it isn't razbam tier. . I noticed that detection ranges will vary depending on RCS and a % chance of detection will increase the closer you are.

. Razbams Radar modeling on the M2K and now the Apg70 has set a new benchmark for radar simulation in DCS , Heatblur is now setting a new benchmark for RWR simulation with An/APR46 for the F4E, and they said they were willing to go open source with thier code to ED, so a similar baseline can be applied to other RWR 's on other modules. i think once these 2 things complete the prerequisite is already there to move on to modeling more authentic Electronic warfare, jammers etc.