Jump to content

How feasible/likely is an RAH-66 Comanche module


Recommended Posts

Just wondering, as it never went into production how this affects licensing and making a realistic module?

 

Oh and how likely are ED or a third party likely to make this (and a eurofighter)?


Edited by The_Chugster
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • The_Chugster changed the title to How feasible/likely is an RAH-66 Comanche module

I should think there'd also be a problem just getting info about systems & characteristics. 

**edit** you already said that and I'm very tired lol

Fly fast and leave a pretty wreck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Eurofighter is already in the cards. Just look a bit further down the forums.

The Comanche… not very likely, although it's not like ED or DCS are strangers to putting things that didn't really leave the prototype stage into the game. Just look at the Frog T and Ka-50. It's more that no-one with any insight would come forth with the data or offer a contract for it, since no-one is ever expected to learn to use it in any way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tippis said:

Eurofighter is already in the cards. Just look a bit further down the forums.

The Comanche… not very likely, although it's not like ED or DCS are strangers to putting things that didn't really leave the prototype stage into the game. Just look at the Frog T and Ka-50. It's more that no-one with any insight would come forth with the data or offer a contract for it, since no-one is ever expected to learn to use it in any way.

 

Ka-50 had a production run and saw service, there is enough info to develop the systems.

Su-25T, is not Full Fidelity, so you can't really use it as an example.. Systems accuracy wise, but again, had 3 Proto's and an initial 8 Unit Production run, and was a conversion of a massively produced airframe already.

The RAH-66 is a unique design, not taken from a pre-existing airframe. Only had 2 Prototypes constructed, and nearly no combat systems integrated for most of the testing.

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill,

X470 Taichi Ultimate, 2x R7970 Lightnings Crossfired @ 1.1/6.0GHz,

3x ASUS VS248HP + Hanns·G HZ201HPB + Oculus HMD,

Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs, CH Fighterstick+Pro Throttle+Pro Pedals

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, those low “production” numbers still pretty firmly plant them in the “didn't really leave prototype” stage, especially since they were immediately abandoned, scrapped, and drastically reworked, and the lessons used from actual, proper production runs afterwards 😉

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

RAH-66 is less likely than AH-64E Block 2 to appear.

 

The RAH-66 is like a F-22 with rotors, with features, some of that got to put inside AH-64E. 

2 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

Ka-50 had a production run and saw service, there is enough info to develop the systems.

 

Kamov worked with the ED to make the module. ED got access to one unit and the documentation.

 

Problem is that RAH-66 is pretty secret to begin with. External 3D model is possible to be made and just guess many things but it would be "Comanche Gold" on steroids.

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 post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Tippis said:

Yeah, those low “production” numbers still pretty firmly plant them in the “didn't really leave prototype” stage, especially since they were immediately abandoned, scrapped, and drastically reworked, and the lessons used from actual, proper production runs afterwards 😉

  The difference is they were actually fully functional ''prototypes'' ie low yield production runs, the only thing keeping them from entering mass production was willpower. The Comanches are ACTUAL prototypes, one off units that weren't really ''finished'' yet. It was a fresh board design and they were even still messing with the airframe, with the intent of finalising what a Comanche even was over the next half dozen prototypes. Which is worth consideration, usually a new design goes through anywhere from 6-12 ''prototypes'' each progressively closer to a finished product, a lot of times the first few aren't even airworthy, just ground tests. With the Comanche, we're looking at #1 and #2, that's pretty damn early in the design process.

 

  @OP

  Yeah, all secrecy aside, that's more of an aside, the more immediate issue being there is no clear ''design'' to build a Comanche to, cause it was literally not finished yet. You would basically just have a 3d model that looked like it, and everything after that would be made up.l, loosely based on whatever the ''projected features'' were intended to be.

Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2021 at 5:46 AM, Tippis said:

Yeah, those low “production” numbers still pretty firmly plant them in the “didn't really leave prototype” stage, especially since they were immediately abandoned, scrapped, and drastically reworked, and the lessons used from actual, proper production runs afterwards 😉

No, completely wrong.

 

Ka50 bort #25 was a complete and ready-for-production aircraft. If not for Soviet Union collapsing, those would be to stay. However due a change in the political system, as well as military tactics, Ka52 was made. Neither is a prototype, but fully functioning and operative helicopter. It was used in combat as well in Chechnya.

 

The prototype of Ka50 were V-80, starting from bort #10 to #15 (5 prototypes). Those predated Ka50 and were testing everything from aerodynamics to systems onboard the aircraft. That's all there is to it.

 

They were also not immediately "abandoned or scrapped", but went on to the following:

- Some went on to test new systems and glass-cockpit for Ka52.

- Some went to the police unit.

- Some went to MVD.

 

So once again, you are wrong.


Edited by zerO_crash

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2021 at 7:33 AM, Fri13 said:

The RAH-66 is like a F-22 with rotors

Or even YF-23 with rotors, both of them were only two pre production prototypes. Not integrated with full combat suite.

 

Ka-50 we have is a kind of serial machine, even if produced only in a few copies. It's just Russia not being close to USSR capabilities to produce thousands of Mi-24.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People like to put forth Ka-50 and Su-25T when they want to argue for unicorns in DCS. I may not necessarily be entirely averse to some of those unicorns myself, but wouldn't argue for them either. However, Ka-50 and Su-25T weren't mere prototypes, well... or at least they were operational prototypes. At least more than a handful were built, they had combat capabilities incorporated, and we're used in operational testing over Chechenia, in actual combat sorties.

 

RAH-66's systems weren't even clearly defined yet as far as I know. In many cases aircraft can't be made for DCS because required info may not be accessible. In case of RAH-66, that information does not even exist, probably.

  • Like 1

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Berserk said:

Or even YF-23 with rotors, both of them were only two pre production prototypes. Not integrated with full combat suite.

 

Was it not that both had some features the other didn't have? I don't remember anymore exacts from the project as it is so long time when I investigated and followed the project.

 

11 minutes ago, Berserk said:

Ka-50 we have is a kind of serial machine, even if produced only in a few copies. It's just Russia not being close to USSR capabilities to produce thousands of Mi-24.

 

The KA-50 got to first serial production version before it went to Chechen. The second serial production standard was developed from the experiences in there and after testing period, that was to be released.

 

It was far further in production than RAH-66 was.

  • Confused 1

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 post
Share on other sites

Not to mention: how many SME's are out there to provide actual feedback about the Comanche? Look at the Apache, despite having quite a lot of info (not as much as Mi-24 acc. to Wags, but still) ED asked for SME's to make sure they can provide a true-to-life replication of the Apache flight characteristics. How do you provide the same level of fidelity with a prototype helicopter that wasn't finalized in any way, and where only a handful of people flew it IRL?

  • Like 2

AMD R5 5600X | 32GB DDR4 3000MHz | RTX 2070 SUPER | HP Reverb G2 | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk3 | Thrustmaster TCWS

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

They were also not immediately "abandoned or scrapped", but went on to the following:

- Some went on to test new systems and glass-cockpit for Ka52.

- Some went to the police unit.

- Some went to MVD.

How many Ka-50:s (not Erdogans or Alligators) were operational in, say, 2005? A mere 10 years after its introduction…

If you can find it (my google-fu fails me at his point) dig up and check the chassis list and see how many are just scrap at this point. Listing them as testbeds for the next — or, hell, even the same — generation of helos isn't really working against the point that it never really left the prototype stage and were drastically reworked. Quite the opposite. 😄

 

2 hours ago, WinterH said:

However, Ka-50 and Su-25T weren't mere prototypes, well... or at least they were operational prototypes

They were limited-run productions that never got anywhere and which were abandoned because, while the idea seemed neat, it had considerable flaws that could be resolved by building a different aircraft that did much of the same thing in a better (for various meanings of “better”) way. The point remains much the same: they were unicorn planes, no matter how much people try to dress up those vanishingly low production numbers, and you'll often see other oddball planes being suggested and shot down in spite of them having larger runs. These two simple show that goofy and low production runs aren't really show-stoppers as far as adding things to DCS.

 

The Comanche remains problematic because it simply doesn't have enough data on it, even with the manufacturer, since they never finished it. But the principle is much the same.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ok follow up question, would you guys want ED or a third party to make a Comanche, knowing alot of it would be made up from current AH-64D avionics, guesstimates and feature expectations?

 

Obviously it wouldnt be a super serious module but do we want something like this in DCS?


Edited by The_Chugster
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The_Chugster said:

Ok follow up question, would you guys want ED or a third party to make a Comanche, knowing alot of it would be made up from current AH-64D avionics, guesstimates and feature expectations?

 

Obviously it wouldnt be a super serious module but do we want something like this in DCS?

 


No. Its not in production.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The_Chugster said:

Ok follow up question, would you guys want ED or a third party to make a Comanche, knowing alot of it would be made up from current AH-64D avionics, guesstimates and feature expectations?

 

Obviously it wouldnt be a super serious module but do we want something like this in DCS?

 

 

No?

  • Like 1
Spoiler

tumblr_inline_mpv4v0zasI1rg41uj.gif

The troll formerly known as Zhukov

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The_Chugster said:

Ok follow up question, would you guys want ED or a third party to make a Comanche, knowing alot of it would be made up from current AH-64D avionics, guesstimates and feature expectations?

 

Obviously it wouldnt be a super serious module but do we want something like this in DCS?

Sure, why not. Most of the game is a fantasy-history mish-mash of systems and capabilities anyway.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The_Chugster said:

Ok follow up question, would you guys want ED or a third party to make a Comanche, knowing alot of it would be made up from current AH-64D avionics, guesstimates and feature expectations?

 

Obviously it wouldnt be a super serious module but do we want something like this in DCS?

 

When there isn't sufficient data to make a full fidelity representation of an aircraft ED wont even consider it because it would not represent the quality they aspire to specialize in.

In my opinion the only way you could possibly have a Comanche representation in DCS is by the means of a Mod that uses an existing modules systems like the Apaches when it releases.


Edited by Evoman
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2021 at 12:47 AM, The_Chugster said:

Just wondering, as it never went into production how this affects licensing and making a realistic module?

 

Oh and how likely are ED or a third party likely to make this (and a eurofighter)?

 

Funny. 

But you know, Wags  said another helicopter is already in works (interview with Casmo) wouldn't talk about this secret though. Since it is secret then, you know, let's assume its Comanche.

 

Link to the interview if you missed it:

 

 From 11:00

 

😂😂😂


Edited by Gierasimov
  • Like 1
Intel Core i7-10700K - ROG Strix Z490-H Gaming - 64GB Vengance LPX - RTX 3080 Eagle OC - non-VR - single player - open beta

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Chugster said:

Ok follow up question, would you guys want ED or a third party to make a Comanche, knowing alot of it would be made up from current AH-64D avionics, guesstimates and feature expectations?

 

Obviously it wouldnt be a super serious module but do we want something like this in DCS?

 

No

 

Edit: as a mod, sure of course, why not. But not as a product.


Edited by WinterH

Modules:

MiG-21Bis, Fw-190D, Bf-109K, P-51D, F-86F, Ka-50, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, Hawk T1A, C-101, FC3, A-10C, CA, Mirage 2000C, Gazelle, L-39, MiG-15Bis, F-5E, AJS 37 Viggen, Yak-52, Christen Eagle II, MiG-19, I-16, JF-17, F-14, F/A-18C, Fw-190A8, AV-8B/NA, Spitifre IX

 

Mods:

A-4E, MB-339, Edge 540

 

Utility modules:

Combined Arms, NS 430 GPS

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WinterH said:

No

 

Edit: as a mod, sure of course, why not. But not as a product.

 

No.

Not that I care, but no.

Intel Core i7-10700K - ROG Strix Z490-H Gaming - 64GB Vengance LPX - RTX 3080 Eagle OC - non-VR - single player - open beta

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tippis said:

How many Ka-50:s (not Erdogans or Alligators) were operational in, say, 2005? A mere 10 years after its introduction…

If you can find it (my google-fu fails me at his point) dig up and check the chassis list and see how many are just scrap at this point. Listing them as testbeds for the next — or, hell, even the same — generation of helos isn't really working against the point that it never really left the prototype stage and were drastically reworked. Quite the opposite. 😄

 

They were limited-run productions that never got anywhere and which were abandoned because, while the idea seemed neat, it had considerable flaws that could be resolved by building a different aircraft that did much of the same thing in a better (for various meanings of “better”) way. The point remains much the same: they were unicorn planes, no matter how much people try to dress up those vanishingly low production numbers, and you'll often see other oddball planes being suggested and shot down in spite of them having larger runs. These two simple show that goofy and low production runs aren't really show-stoppers as far as adding things to DCS.

 

The Comanche remains problematic because it simply doesn't have enough data on it, even with the manufacturer, since they never finished it. But the principle is much the same.

 

 

There were operational ones, that some got scraped later, and almost all now, that doesn´t say anything though. It was a helicopter ready for production. I already told you that the rather short-lived Ka50 is due to the collapse of the Soviet Union and change of tactics. How long a concept lives doesn´t say anything about it being a prototype or not. You are not making a point here. It was a finished product that was already delivering in Chechnya. No prototype enters the warzone in the way Ka50 did. Kamov stated it was ready, RuAF stated it was ready. It was a matter of signing an official order for production. Soviet Union collapsed, no order was signed. Yet the ground forces received a fully functional helicopter with defined purpose (in Chechnya). That some of them ended up as testbeds was because of the change in tactics and requirements. I do not understand what problem you have with understanding that a vehicle or aircraft being accepted or rejected is a matter of tactics and what the military sees fitting for their needs, and not how many are produced or how long it lives. Those two things have nothing to do with a product being ready.

 

Limited production run? What does this even have to do with it?! B-2 is a limited production run, does that make it a prototype. You are not making any sense here. The amount of a given vehicle/aircraft has nothing to say about it being a prototype, this is completely irrelevant. A prototype is an unfinished product, one that is still being refined. Ka50 was ready for production, but the official order was not signed. This alone nullifies your statement. SR-71 was a limited production run, doesn´t make it a prototype.

 

Again you are wrong, nothing was "abandoned", only had it´s designation and use changed. That they later got scrapped means nothing. There was no need for this airframe (because of the changed requirements), but up until that point, it was used actively. Additionally, the helicopter got adjusted to the new requirements, and Ka52 came off it. That doesn´t mean that Ka50 was a step toward Ka52 initially. You also make the mistake by stating that it had "considerable flaws". Where do you even get that?! The helicopter was sufficient for the Soviet Army. Not so for the Russian one. And why? Because again, TACTICS changed. RuAF figured that this helicopter has much upgrade potential, and with a second crew member. It was able to work as a command-post and scouting helicopter being capable of lasing and giving coordinates for aircraft/artillery/ground troops in a unified datalink system. Those were not requirements in the Soviet Union, but they became with the RuAF. Whereas Ka50 was initially meant to operate in groups of 4 Ka50s in total, the Ka52 is supposed to be the group-leader-helicopter for 4 other Mi-28s/Mi-24s. That´s why Ka52 was created, because in those missions the Ka50 could not suffice. But with regards to the old requirements, Ka50 was perfect.

 

The Comanche was not even close to Ka50. It never took part in any combat. It never had it´s systems finished. It never had it´s weapons-systems integration complete, not by a long shot. Much of the software was never finished. Comanche was a product that was stopped before it ever was finished. Ka50 was finished and ready for production. Comanche is what V-80 was to Ka50.

 

"they were unicorn planes, no matter how much people try to dress up those vanishingly low production numbers, and you'll often see other oddball planes being suggested and shot down in spite of them having larger runs. These two simple show that goofy and low production runs aren't really show-stoppers as far as adding things to DCS." - What is this? What is a "unicorn" plane (this is a helicopter btw.)? What are you talking about here? Show-stoppers for what? It occurs to me that you are one of those who have no idea about an aircraft, and you try to use it as if you were supposed to win a war alone, in your Ka50 which you would make better with the addition of RWR, MWS, Anti-Radiation rockets, Aim120/R77, etc...). Most of what you write is wrong with regards to this aircraft, and it seems to me that you do not understand what Ka50 is/was. You also do not understand what Ka52 came out of (no, not Ka50, but a different mindset and requirements).

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

There were operational ones, that some got scraped later, and almost all now, that doesn´t say anything though.

It says that the idea was neat, but wasn't worth pursuing in the form we have in DCS (and especially not the fantasy versions that have since been teased and almost put into development… kind of a neat mirror there) — instead, they ended up effectively being used as live test platforms for stuff that went into full-production ones and into further prototype versions. The more detail you add to try to suggest otherwise, the more you manage to illustrate exactly what I'm describing.

 

3 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Limited production run? What does this even have to do with it?!

See above: the concepts didn't actually survive rolling off the production line and were abandoned pretty much immediately for improved variants.

 

3 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

What is this? What is a "unicorn" plane (this is a helicopter btw.)?

…but the Su-25T isn't. Please pay attention. And “unicorn” is a pretty common term for something dreamed up to fit some fantastic ideal that turns out not to be achievable or practical when it comes in contact with reality. But as mentioned, those two show that this isn't a show-stopper as far as adding things to DCS — and no, I'm not going to explain a sentence that explains itself to you. If you're going to go down the “you don't understand…” route, try not doing that in the same breath as you fail at parsing pretty simple text.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...