You guys seen this?
Oh manâŚthat helo is going to rock. If we could get an ApacheâŚthe whole hunter/killer thing would be my dream (the Ka-50 can be a stand-in though)âŚ(and I suppose we could do the whole hunter/killer thing with the Gazelle and Ka-50âŚbut those two aircraft donât talk to each other do they - can the Gazelle designate for a Vikhr?)
2 Likes
Hunter/killer would be awesome. Not sure if Gazelle can designate for the jets now.
Ka-50 is probably not compatible with NATO laser codes, but more importantly, Vikhr is a beam riding missile, so any designating craft would need to be pretty much on top of the launching platform for the missile to capture the beam.
I am kind of worried about their statement that they are still unsure whether they will release it for DCS or another platform.
1 Like
AhâŚthatâs right. That makes sense. 
1 Like
No, the HOT missiles are wire-guided, and the laser that is on the Gazelle is only used for ranging.
3 Likes
I hope Ollie and his pals can pull it off.
I talked to him some time ago (when Sven still was with them) and even was close to joining the team back then to help with some stuff but there was some misunderstanding between the guys and me so that never got anywhere.
I hear he has problems finding a coder, hope he can get that out of the way.
I am very excited for the BO105 and even drove a few 100km to get some photos for him and helped with some research on it. I want that project to succeed.
I admit I donât care much about the Kiowa but I understand many people like it, and its capabilities are quite impressive.
2 Likes
A mast mounted FLIR is like icing on top of a collidable tree cake.
2 Likes
I have had to keep this a secret for over a year now. Phew at last an announcement. All you guys just want modern tech. Give me a stripped down 1968 era airframe and a single bungee mounted M60 with its ridiculously bad N2 droop 
The 99th had a mission script that allow the Gazelle to âlaze and A/FACâ. Would be nice to include in more missions, as I too think it would be a nice fill in.
1 Like
IMO the great weakness in DCS will be the multicrew bit. This is something that really will plague any kind of attack helicopter, as anyone who flies the Ka-50 can attest. Itâs very easy for the workload to result in burnout, and the more you do it, the more likely you are to make a mistake. The '58 doesnât have quite the same level of problems that the '64 does in that regard, but the number of '58s lost to all causes is indicative that, despite appearances, itâs not a whole lot easier to fly and fight in.
In the later years, the '58s tended to be used as rapid response light gunships and some even went out with the MMS removed. The '58F upgrade was going to toss out the MMS in favor of a nose mounted designator and sight to better fit into this role and it was shaping up to be a really good upgrade til the brass decided to throw it out (more on that later). The '58F was also going to cut back on the weight and increase the power, which would have solved a lot of the problems that have plagued the '58 since its inception.
Big thing about the '58 though: a kick in the shin will blow it up. Throughout the GWOT, a lot of '58s came back that were completely shot to â â â â and they were having trouble keeping airframes in circulation. The US Army was in dire need of a light gunship and the only thing they had in reasonable quantity was the â58. Use what ya got, not what ya want nâ all that jazz. Also, the '58 doesnât have any real crash resistance and with practically no armor to speak of, the crew is quite vulnerable. I donât recall if the F was going to change any of that, but I think I had read about it incorporating some better crash-resistant seats. That was really needed because the airbag system wasnât good for â â â â .
So, back to retiring the airframe: the Army brass had decided, in their infinite wisdom, that ditching the '58 would save them X dollars. The problem is they didnât think about where the mission would go; the '64 is a heavy sumbitch and expensive to boot, plus itâs way overkill for most of what they were using the '58 for. Now, sensible solution would be to get some armament going on the '60Ms (the M has a lot of fancy stuff to enable that) and balance the mission between the '64 and the '60, but the brass is scared â â â â â â â â that if anyone sees the '60 doing attack missions, the '64 will lose funding. Further, it means your '60 crews now have to train for an attack mission, in addition to all the other stuff they gotta do. What was supposed to save money has ended up costing them because they fudged their numbers to fit an agenda and now theyâre paying for it. It doesnât help that the Army backed out of the Firescout program which would have given them a UAV with similar capability as the '58.
TL;DR You lose out on too much doing attack/observation with just one seat. It can be done, but thereâs a reason why these aircraft have two crew members to begin with.
6 Likes
Iâm hoping the Tomcat and the like really re-enforce that as well. Two seats needed.
Itâs funny, because the Gazelle multi-seat seemed to work really well. @BeachAV8R and I near the launch of the thing actually did a dual VR, dual-seat try out and it was fantastic. It felt surreal to be playing with someone in the same cockpit, sharing tasks (across 3000 miles real distance between BC Canada and NC USA) in a 3D world. Unbelievable stuff, only a few short years a go. His head-look in VR would literally be where he was looking, which helped us chat about where targets were. It felt really natural.
But then we didnât do it again. Thinking about it, it is really odd, in that I looked so forward to it but as soon as it was here then it sort of got over-taken by events and not really gone back to. I feel guilty about this somewhat, as in we lust after these amazing toys for so long, they arrive after years of effort, and then if something else shiny comes along then they donât get used. Maybe something to do with it being more fun flying rather than WEPs? Not sure.
Are people going to want to do the non-flying roles?
1 Like
For the type of MP flying I do with the 229th I can think of nothing better than taking someone up for the basic wings tasks sitting in the left seat. However I will probably be one of the minority and for the majority it will be a cool feature that is underused.
I suppose online squadrons who attempt to emulate RL will be the biggest beneficiaries whether in jets like the Tomcat and maybe one day an F15D and of course the rotorheads. I would imagine also that flying multi crew hueys and jets will be less nausea inducing than the Gazelle in VR, I mean it gets cramped in that bubble
1 Like
It was weird, in that not being in control but sat in the thing going flat out on the deck just felt all sorts of wrong. I also remember VRSâing it into the ground and killing us both and feeling extra guilty. It sort of reminded me of BF2 where weâd get a full six players in the helo and then the embarrassment of smacking it straight into a light pole shortly after take off - fratricide guilt in MP.
1 Like
The Gazelle is so out to lunch that there is no way Iâd buy anything else from them without seeing that thing made plausible first. (Just my opinion of course. There are many here, mudspikers whose opinions I value, who think its me in fact who is out to lunch and that the Gazelle is nuts on. If true I still wonât buy it because apparently I canât handle a realistic helicopter 
)
It certainly didnât help that the Gazelle controls really oddly (for me, at least, I fly a desk). The pick-up and turn dynamics in the flight model feels alien enough that I might have just subconsciously avoided flying it. The frustration level of it (maybe the unpredictability of it?) felt pretty high when compared to the Shark, Hip or Huey (which I can drive pretty well).
Sorry,Iâm a bit âButt Hurtâ with the statement [Weâre not sure what sim this will be developed for]??? I mean seriously??? Why would a DCS third party developer make that statement on the DCS Forums?
1 Like
It really did.
YesâŚI was freaking out when you were looking at me. And the Gazelle is uncomfortably tightâŚso I kept worrying that @fearlessfrog would start touching my knee.
I agree. I should probably sacrifice some of my X-Plane flying for online MP flying in DCS World. Of course, if X-Plane ever got some actual MP connectivity, an X-Plane fly-in would also be a ton of fun.
6 Likes
I canât speak for the Gazelle in terms of how it handles multi-crew dynamics, but the AH-64 and OH-58D-F arenât really comparable to it. The AH-64, for example, has a huge workload for the CPG in all models, even more so for the D and later. The A will have him doing stuff primarily related to weapons usage and navigation, while the D/E will (or should) put him in a far more information oriented role, especially if UAVs are in the picture. Plainly speaking, there is a lot for the CPG to be involved with, most of it little fiddly bits involving the mission that are difficult to carry out while flying the aircraft at the same time. The '58 is much the same way, though that will depend greatly on the mission itâs carrying out. A simple, straightforward gunship mission employing rockets and the .50 wonât leave much for the CP to do, but a complicated spotting/designation mission will require all hands on deck, especially as the threat level increases.
I donât know what equipment the Gazelle comes with, but with the latest models of '64s and '58s, youâre looking at a lot of systems that have a lot of stuff to work with, a number of which canât be exclusively managed from one crew station. For example, the pilot in the '64 canât operate the TADS in a targeting fashion, so he canât use the laser to guide SAL or friendly laser guided munitions. The A is even worse as all the missile controls are in the front seat and the rocket controls are all in the back seat. The '58 doesnât have these same problems (though my memory wants to say that missiles can only be launched from the right hand seat, but Iâm not 100% on that) but it tosses that into an airframe that is inherently less survivable.
Bottom line, not every situation is going to be the same, but in any scenario involving threats that can shoot down aircraft are going to make it that much more difficult for a single crew helicopter to survive in. With the '64, youâre looking at having to manage the CMWS, APR-39, AVR-2, and ACM at a minimum. The '58 doesnât pack the ACM, but it does all the others, so itâs going to be a similar joyride to keep all that stuff working while trying to avoid being seen/hit. A word on attacking/targeting: both the '64 and the '58 donât exactly have an easy button for the TADS and the MMS, so trying to get those to point at the right target and stay there is a full time job. Keeping in mind that the '58 doesnât have a HMD, so thereâs no âlook-shootâ capability like with the Apache.
8 Likes
Woo hoo you will fit in here well. This forum seems to thrive on acronyms 
Nice post BTW
4 Likes
I find that to be a common problem as well. I dont mind riding as the gunner, but often cant find a decent driver on SRS. And vice versa.
Multi-crew is great if you have a dedicated group.
1 Like