Jump to content

Developer confirms Littlebird AH-6/MH-6 will never come to DCS due to classification.


Temp89

Recommended Posts

https://www.facebook.com/PolychopSimulations/posts/1745167662455549

 

In the comments of Polychop's post. The Z variant of the AH-1 also forbidden:

 

little bird is impossible. The MH6 is completly resrticted by JSOC and SOCOM.You will not find anything about them that would be usable for a sim likeDCS o any high fidelity sim

 

z is impossible. The us navy would very likely bust your company and you would have to answer a lot of questions where ou got l the intel from. the ah/mh6 is about the same. it is completly restricted by jsoc and socom

 

the viper is impossible do to the us navy not allowing it for anybody. We checked with them and there are 2 options. You do not produce a viper and have a happy life, or you produce it and might loose your bussiness and might end up in jail. The us navy is not joking on that one

 

They say the Apache is "not available for 3rd parties".

 

not available in DCS for 3rd parties. I wish it would have been, then we would have started on the ah64d block 2 about 2,5 years ago

 

Doesn't necessarily mean is planned for 1st party.

Would like to see:

Panavia Tornado

Panther AS565

English Electric Lightning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really want a little bird... But it should be possible to do a Vietnam era one. They were underpowered and prone to engine failure though. The one with the C10 was awful, the C18 was workable but underpowered, and the c20 upgrade was pretty nice. I have about 5 hours in one with a c18 and 700 in the c20 but I was flying them de-milled in a civilian role a couple years ago so I'm not sure when which engines went in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it should be possible to do a Vietnam era one.

 

Or perhaps the export ones. The 500MD Defender with TOW missiles, for instance.

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking at some of the pictures on their facebook page I would speculate that an OH-58 variant is likely. Just my 2c.

Specs:

Fractal Design Define R5 Black, ASUS ROG Strix Z370-E, Intel Core i5-8600K Coffee Lake @ 5.1 GHz, MSI GeForce GTX 1080ti 11GB 352-Bit GDDR5X, Corsair H110i, G.Skill TridentZ 32GB (2x16GB), Samsung 960 Evo M.2 500GB SSD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what about KA52?

 

I have serious doubts that the russian Air Force will be more cooperative than the US Navy.

If I remember correctly one moderator or ED employee said some years ago this is the main reason why we will never see a modern russian fighter in full fidelity in DCS.

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldnt the OH-6 Cayuse be an option, for the MH-6 Littlebird?

Id love to see the Cayuse in DCS. Hence its presence in my sig :).

- Jack of many DCS modules, master of none.

- Personal wishlist: F-15A, F-4S Phantom II, JAS 39A Gripen, SAAB 35 Draken, F-104 Starfighter, Panavia Tornado IDS.

 

| Windows 11 | i5-12400 | 64Gb DDR4 | RTX 3080 | 2x M.2 | 27" 1440p | Rift CV1 | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind pedals |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about some diplomacy at work. Let say that simmers would love to put hands on lot of new birds but since this RL vs SimLife barrier is getting thinner and lot of defense Intel is still classified (with a obvious reason) how about some modules development allowed based on year lock, let say 20 years back in time tech is allowed to be replicated in commercial sims based on declassified documents? And I mean that scope is not external model but mainly pilot interactive systems and features. Reverse engineering should not be scope of this agreement and that would mean that that module version developed this way is signed as not supported by official unclassified documents. Correct weapon engagement procedure is not really focus of flight sims, its more about war games, maneuvering and offensive vs defensive tactics which would, in theory, use this classified technology in just small portion of sim procedures - weapon engagement preparation, and I think that no hardcore simmer would insist on this to be implemented consistently thus endangering national security of any nations army. There should be some agreement beyond ED to make this "sport" safe of unreasonable restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think helicopter development should be above the baseline of the UH-1 and Gazelle. I can't imagine a Littlebird would sell that well anyway. Or troop carriers for that matter. If Combined Arms was comparable to ARMA or even Battlefield 2, I could see some value in light but relatively fragile scouts as well as troop movers. A.I. assets are another thing, but also a different level of production.


Edited by Stryker2000

Team Red wish MiG-23/27, Su-17/22, Su-24, Su-30 C, Yak-130, Tu-16, Tu-95, Tu-22M

 

Team Blue want AH-1W, AH-64, Alphajet, A-4, Jaguar, Tornado, F-16, A-6, A-7, F-111, F-15E, B-52, B-1B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
I can't imagine a Littlebird would sell that well anyway. Or troop carriers for that matter. If Combined Arms was comparable to ARMA or even Battlefield 2, I could see some value in light but relatively fragile scouts as well as troop movers. A.I. assets are another thing, but also a different level of production.

 

If the Mi-8 and Huey are any indication, I don't think its unreasonable to say that something like an MD500 or S70i (Export UH60M) will do equally well.

 

Especially since both would be able to equip a bunch of different weapons, and/or serve as a troop transport. There are a bunch of people salivating over the CH-53 that RAZBAM (I think it was) teased a while back. And that's a dedicated heavy transport with no real offensive capabilities.

LG 34UC97 34" 3440x1440 monitor | 2x GTX-980 G1 Gaming

I7-5820k @ 3.3GHz | 16GB Corsair Vengeance DDR4 @ 2133Mhz

Samsung 840 EVO 120GB & 1TB SSDs | Seagate 3TB HDD

TM Warthog | Saitek Pro Flight Combat Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think helicopter development should be above the baseline of the UH-1 and Gazelle. I can't imagine a Littlebird would sell that well anyway. Or troop carriers for that matter. If Combined Arms was comparable to ARMA or even Battlefield 2, I could see some value in light but relatively fragile scouts as well as troop movers. A.I. assets are another thing, but also a different level of production.

 

You might need to check your vision ;)

 

The OH-6 would be a first-day buy for me. As would any troop carrier: in fact, I would rather have a UH-60, CH-47, CH-53, V-22, etc. over the Hornet any time, any day, in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand exactly what could possibly be so "classified" about it (MH-6/AH-6).

 

It's not a very sophisticated helicopter in terms of flight control systems at all. In fact it's rudimentary. And they are used by other countries as well, not to mention civilian versions readily available to examine. My friend flies one for a sheriff's office.

 

Most of us would want to put miniguns on it, and/or hang dudes off the side and insert/extract them. If there's some other classified system they've added in there that doesn't have to do with shooting or carrying peeps, I for one wouldn't care if it wasn't modeled.

 

I just don't accept "It can't be done" in the case of the little bird.

  • Like 1

 

Banner EDForum2020.jpg

Have fun. Don't suck. Kill bad guys. 👍

https://discord.gg/blacksharkden/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL... Yeah we don't understand what could be classified on a classified platform? Since we have never seen one and won't see one we really have no way to determine WHY it is classified and that is they way they want it.. And the one your friend flies for the police is definitely not the same bird as the classified one..

 

With all of that in mind, I don't know what could be on that bird to make it that sensitive.. But that is kinda the point of making it classified in the first place isn't it?

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is, anything that is classified on it almost certainly isn't going to be interesting for a simulator.

 

I of course don't mean they are "exactly the same," but I would say - substantially similar enough for DCS development purposes.

 

There are a lot of things that are FOUO, and all kinds of classified for no very good reason. Malaysia and South Korea use this platform, and it's hard to imagine we would export something that is so tremendously classified.

 

Most of what is needed to be learned or approximated about it can be learned open source.

  • Like 1

 

Banner EDForum2020.jpg

Have fun. Don't suck. Kill bad guys. 👍

https://discord.gg/blacksharkden/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...