Jump to content

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


Temp89

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Classifications are never for no good reason. For those who's career is to find out secrets the clues to prevent spies from learning information that the good guys want secret is the reason a classification system is in place. Like was said earlier, if you don't know why its classified then the system is working. Japan has the F-15J, but the F-15J and the F-15C are not the same jet. Like a car, the chassis might be the same, but when you change the engine, radiator, turbocharger, suspension, tires, and brakes you can end up with a completely different vehicle. Like a car just about anything can be swapped out on the airframe to change its capabilities. From the outside looking in it's going to be just as difficult to know what those differences are because people don't want other people to even know that there is a difference. As long as they think its for no good reason then mission accomplished.

 

ED could attempt to model a civilian version to get around some things, but there are other things to consider.

"It's amazing, even at the Formula 1 level how many drivers still think the brakes are for slowing the car down."

 

VF-2 Bounty Hunters



[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Virtual Carrier Strike Group 1 | Discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course we don't "know" why it's classified. I suspect it's to forestall capabilities assessment when you consider max range, MTOW, actual max speed, etc. Such info could be used to accurately box the aircraft into a certain envelope and plan against it.

 

What I am pointing out is, for sim purposes - hard information on those classified portions really aren't necessary, and the dna from the civ model can be substituted in just fine. Would likely be undetectable.

 

We also haven't been told by whoever alleged that it is classified (I haven't seen a FOIA denial or anything else) what level of classification it supposedly has. Malaysia and South Korea are flying this helicopter. That tells me any government who wanted information about this helicopter certainly already has it.

 

I totally disagree that everything that is classified is so for a good reason.

 

There are definitely things that are, or remain classified for no good reason. To protect someone politically, to kick back a favor to a company and help keep their intellectual property secret for as long as possible, or "we don't know - let's make it classified just because."

 

Banner EDForum2020.jpg

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

https://discord.gg/blacksharkden/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can think of many examples of pointless classification. The government is a bureaucracy, first and foremost, and moves ever so slowly.

 

As for the AH-6's classification, since they mentioned JSOC, I believe virtually everything associated with JSOC and "black ops" units by definition is classified, just on the basis of its association with them.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/classification-and-consequences-secrecy-should-be-justified-not-automatic

 

 

"And officials sometimes find it easier to conceal entire documents — including pages of harmless information — rather than spend time segregating the sensitive parts from the non-sensitive ones. All of this feeds massive over-classification. Experts of all political stripes say nine in 10 secret documents should not be classified."

 

Are you taking the position that in every case someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy actually had a factually justifiable reason to classify everything that is classified?

 

Banner EDForum2020.jpg

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

https://discord.gg/blacksharkden/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you can classify something, then you do it. And who classified something, can a well declassified it at any given point. That gives the person doing the classification the power over others.

 

If your budget doesn't hold, you are spending money to something that shouldn't be so, you can easily classify it, as it doesn't come up when it is not a public record for taxpayers.

 

But, one reason why these old systems are classified is just because:

1) They are old and the classification just was forgotten. No one cares it is classified so it stays so, and even if it doesn't need to be anymore, it stays so as there is no one to declassify it.

 

2) The modern systems are based to the older variants, using parts of them as base or you can find out the logic via old designs. So old legacy systems are classified so modern ones are not compromised.

 

So we can forgot now the AH-1Z and even likely the AH-1G all together.

And one reason why we do not get anything newer than Su-27S, is that all the Su-30 and Su-35 versions are just couple upgrades from it. The Su-27 family has so many names and marketing names that it sounds first that there is a dozen different variants between original Su-27S and the modern one, but there is just 1-2 versions. So to get a newer one, it would be a operational one.

 

We are already talking a very new war technologies with these aircrafts. That is already one of the magical ones that F/A-18C was allowed to come out, and likely one reason is F-35 is being replacing it so it is "end of the line" for the teen family.

 

AH-6 does sound a stupid to be classified, but when it is used by special operators, you will end up that someone would find out vulnerable parts in the aircraft to shoot it down. Or how to sabotage it etc.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing classified about the Little Bird. It is an MD-500 with a couple of of off the shelf components bolted on. Even the New MH-6/AH-6 is not anything special. Boeing Upgraded the drivetrain, and gave it a glass panel, with standard off the shelf components. It is a cheap entry level attack chopper that could easily be reproduced in DCS. The Gazelle and BO are more technical, and they have already been done.

 

-Woog

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep everybody is an expert but here is the reality.. If the owners of the airframe don't want you to model it you are done. It is their intellectual property. Period.. So we can debate the whys and wherefores until the end of time and changes nothing.

"Pride is a poor substitute for intelligence."

RAMBO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woog - so far reality. I have actually flown Boeing’s AH-6i. Avionics wise - there is nothing off the shelf in it. It is similar to AH-64E.

 

Show me a civilian MD-500 with a 6 bladed rotor system.

 

The current AH/MH-6 variants bear little resemblance to civilian MDs in any other area beside external appearance.

 

On the other hand MD do make an armed MD-530G - as used by AFG military. Not much different to a civilian MD-530. just weaponised.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woog - so far reality. I have actually flown Boeing’s AH-6i. Avionics wise - there is nothing off the shelf in it. It is similar to AH-64E.

 

Show me a civilian MD-500 with a 6 bladed rotor system.

 

The current AH/MH-6 variants bear little resemblance to civilian MDs in any other area beside external appearance.

On the other hand MD do make an armed MD-530G - as used by AFG military. Not much different to a civilian MD-530. just weaponised.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

That sounds do-able, and it would scratch the little bird itch for just about everyone.

 

Banner EDForum2020.jpg

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

https://discord.gg/blacksharkden/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So we can forgot now the AH-1Z and even likely the AH-1G all together.

 

Belsimtek is apparently planning on making an AH-1W once they finish the Mi-24p.

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

Belsimtek is apparently planning on making an AH-1W once they finish the Mi-24p.
Belsimtek might have a license... But as was the original post Polychop saying, US Navy don't allow it to be done (at least by Polychop).

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fri13

Belsimtek might have a license... But as was the original post Polychop saying, US Navy don't allow it to be done (at least by Polychop).

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

 

Your assumption is incorrect.

 

And guys, please stay on topic. Nobody has any confirmation of Belsimtek having a license for the Ah1w or any other Bell Textron product. This topic was only about the ah6/mh6 , which is impossible do to SOCOM and JSOC.


Edited by borchi_2b
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woog - so far reality. I have actually flown Boeing’s AH-6i. Avionics wise - there is nothing off the shelf in it. It is similar to AH-64E.

 

Show me a civilian MD-500 with a 6 bladed rotor system.

 

The current AH/MH-6 variants bear little resemblance to civilian MDs in any other area beside external appearance.

 

On the other hand MD do make an armed MD-530G - as used by AFG military. Not much different to a civilian MD-530. just weaponised.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

Hey Bull,

 

I have no flight time in the AH-6 which should be fairly obvious. After researching it a little more, it is apparent that We stuffed some Apache Electronics in it, and gave it some Link 16 capabilities for data share and drone connectivity. The 6 bladed rotor and Apache style X-pattern tailrotor I was aware of. This is part of the Drivetrain upgrade I referred to.

 

The Little bird, or "Killer Egg" had been around for a long time. While the details and systems of the latest variant make it a NoGo, the standard MD-500 Defender, or even an old OH-6 Cayuse is absolutely able to be modeled. Being a Boeing product, I can tell you that there is no issue with IP licensing. Boeing will license any and all of it's products for game use, even the AH-64D. It is simply a matter of negotiating out the Royalty contract. This does not mean that Boeing is giving out classified info or even performance charts. It simply mean a developer can make a model, and use the Boeing name.

 

-Woog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belsimtek might have a license... But as was the original post Polychop saying, US Navy don't allow it to be done (at least by Polychop).

 

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

 

Actually the original post references the AH-1Z, not the AH-1W.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's the rub... The current US military AH/MH-6 model is too classified to do. A Vietnam C model could be done or possibly an export version but then you can't sell it as the army version. It would be the export one wearing a fictional US Army paint job, and we know how DCS purist will freak out about that. Even if it was clearly labeled there would be accusations of misleading sales practices. So that leaves a Vietnam era one. Having flown a demilitarized one I can tell you the c-18 and especially the c-10 engines are extremely underpowered and it will struggle to carry any kind of load especially in hot humid conditions you find in Vietnam. It has no laser to designate and no datalink capability to mark targets. So you end up with an anemic bird that can carry two miniguns or 14 rockets. I trust that Polychop has something more useful in mind for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@all: I like to read your posts about the MH6/AH6, but keep in mind, as long as we have no access to any flightmanuals of that bird it is impossible to build it. JSOC and SOCOM are very strict on what happens and they are aware of most of the stuff that happens and the 160th SOAR would know too what we build, and seriously, I do not want to tlak to officials from some of the agencies that would knock my door as I am the CEO. So it is nice to see your thoughts, but currently, I see no possibility to bring this AH6/Mh6 to life in DCS. As it was stated above, we have better helicopters in planning then an oh6 and I prefer to use the resources for them.

 

One fact I learned is, that what ever helicopter we could come up with, there are people that would dislike it or buy it instantly, so there is no real favourite of the community.

I had people messege me about ah64 and how much they admire it and how much they do not like the ah1w/z and vise versa. So there is no real route to take customer wise, at least to the general statistics. Some prefer transport over attack and some prefer light scouts over anything else or some even only like civil helicopters. So yes it is nice to read your thoughts on this, but in the end, we as company have to decide by multiple factors that are not always for the wide customer range, why we do or will not do a helicopter.

 

About the MH6 I thought it would be fair to at least name the reason why we ae not touching it, which is resonable for the given facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why a MD-500 isn't a good substitute...it can be used for light cargo/scouting, maybe even throw a door gunner in the back to give it some teeth. There's an application for it, and it would satisfy some peoples' need for the MH-6. This simple solution seems to never be discussed. I mean if the Christian Eagle is a go...anything should be on the table (barring the classified stuff).

[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woog - so far reality. I have actually flown Boeing’s AH-6i. Avionics wise - there is nothing off the shelf in it. It is similar to AH-64E.

 

Show me a civilian MD-500 with a 6 bladed rotor system.

 

The current AH/MH-6 variants bear little resemblance to civilian MDs in any other area beside external appearance.

 

On the other hand MD do make an armed MD-530G - as used by AFG military. Not much different to a civilian MD-530. just weaponised.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't see why a MD-500 isn't a good substitute...it can be used for light cargo/scouting, maybe even throw a door gunner in the back to give it some teeth. There's an application for it, and it would satisfy some peoples' need for the MH-6. This simple solution seems to never be discussed. I mean if the Christian Eagle is a go...anything should be on the table (barring the classified stuff).

 

Pretty much.... YES! :thumbup:

 

Banner EDForum2020.jpg

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

https://discord.gg/blacksharkden/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@all: I like to read your posts about the MH6/AH6, but keep in mind, as long as we have no access to any flightmanuals of that bird it is impossible to build it. JSOC and SOCOM are very strict on what happens and they are aware of most of the stuff that happens and the 160th SOAR would know too what we build, and seriously, I do not want to tlak to officials from some of the agencies that would knock my door as I am the CEO. So it is nice to see your thoughts, but currently, I see no possibility to bring this AH6/Mh6 to life in DCS. As it was stated above, we have better helicopters in planning then an oh6 and I prefer to use the resources for them.

 

One fact I learned is, that what ever helicopter we could come up with, there are people that would dislike it or buy it instantly, so there is no real favourite of the community.

I had people messege me about ah64 and how much they admire it and how much they do not like the ah1w/z and vise versa. So there is no real route to take customer wise, at least to the general statistics. Some prefer transport over attack and some prefer light scouts over anything else or some even only like civil helicopters. So yes it is nice to read your thoughts on this, but in the end, we as company have to decide by multiple factors that are not always for the wide customer range, why we do or will not do a helicopter.

 

About the MH6 I thought it would be fair to at least name the reason why we ae not touching it, which is resonable for the given facts.

 

The upside of all this is, that no matter which helicopter you choose to simulate, you'll have a crowd gathering nonetheless!

 

So go forth and bring us something with one or two big rotors and one or none small rotor, be it transport, attack, civilian, big, small, slow or large, it'll sell regardless :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Commodore 64 | MOS6510 | VIC-II | SID6581 | DD 1541 | KCS Power Cartridge | 64Kb | 32Kb external | Arcade Turbo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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