Helo News game related.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

There was some conversation about the following items...
1. The CH-53K (As of 5/14/2014 is now the “King Stallion”) has been delayed three years past the 2016 date I had earlier. It will now not reach Initial Operational Capability (IOC) until JAN 2019. Any delay (And funding is a top issue here thanks partly to the F-35C.) over the next couple of years and it'll be getting cut from the OOB.

2. As a reminder the CH-53D was retired on 2/10/2012; I had reported on this in this Thread and one other at the time. I never submitted it as an oversight on my part due to my issues over the last couple of years.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...updated-01724/

Reminder to all this sight has links built into the article and sources at the bottom.

3. I am now the "player" I'm playing as the USMC and am running an air assault against the enemies FH units that have been spotted, what arty I have is supporting my troops in another sector that's under attack and those units are supporting the attack. The air assault is my only option so with a CH-53E
with troops assigned to it to include snipers and a couple of AT teams. We lift off terrain masking as best I can. I know the true capabilities of these birds but forget what the game setting is for the CH-53E and we push on. The terrain is good but all of a sudden my team is taking fire but can't see from where it's coming from but, I should. My team doesn't make it I lose a bunch of Marines to include those sniper and AT teams. The battle becomes a draw. I go and check the CH-53E stats in my happy mood and the TI/GSR is 1/2 of what it should be-why?
I have to ask...
1. How much more would have it cost to increase the TI/GSR from 20 (I believe.) to 40 vs. the 2 squads, 2 sniper teams and 2 AT teams I just lost. Half of which were "core" units. And let's not forget the bird in this case that might not have got to the LZ but got shot down when it shouldn't have. You can substitute the CH-53K for this scenario as well.

2. The TI/GSR should be 40 for the CH-53E (I have to check but I believe the "E" was upgraded ~2008/2010 timeframe pending the CH-53D retirement and early delays in the CH-53K program.) and 50 for the CH-53K. I posted this in this thread I believe in here somewhere, but it's been posted I'm sure. Again this was an oversight as noted above, this was on my work list from two years ago after checking my files.

3. To support the above look at Post #26 Items A2, A4, A6 and C1. In order and all in the game but for Cambodia with current TI/GSR values; PUMA HC2 50, SUPER COUGAR 60 (This a more specialized bird.), and Mi-17V5 50 (Russian version Mi-8 also at 50.). That's alot of countries and Cambodia will get theirs when the "shop reopens for business". Also Post #29 Item A3 added another SUPER COUGAR this year.

I pushed to get the Tanks and certain APCs increased it took a couple of years, but I provided Don with the right data to do so. In fact where I gave him the option based on the info he went with the higher TI/GSR. Most players will gladly pay more and as I've noted elsewhere so will the AI.

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

1. The CH-53K ... is now the “King Stallion” ... Initial Operational Capability (IOC) until JAN 2019.

2. ... CH-53D was retired on 2/10/2012

You just had to post this later the same day I released an OOB revision didn't you?
*mutters about f-ing squids a while*

Originally Posted by FASTBOAT TOUGH

... The terrain is good but all of a sudden my team is taking fire but can't see from where it's coming from but, I should. My team doesn't make it I lose a bunch of Marines to include those sniper and AT teams. The battle becomes a draw. I go and check the CH-53E stats in my happy mood and the TI/GSR is 1/2 of what it should be-why?

Par for the course.
You will NEVER "see" opposition infantry until they fire on you (and often not even then) at a range of 1-2 hexes, pretty much guaranteeing a hit on their part.
ALWAYS send a well armored attack helo first to "clear the way" for troop carriers.

No TI was a design decision in order to try to keep the unit cost reasonable as this is a transport not attack helo, giving it TI would increase the per unit cost 23%.
AND would have zero effect on the oppositions ability to "ambush" it at 1-2 hexes.

[shahadi]

Z-key baby, keep your units close to bring effective suppression. Then the enemy units will appear plain as day to your guys.

Piggy back on what Shuiir says, yeah my transport helos always roll with attack helos.

So much for "God view" eh?

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Well I'll come back to those last couple of posts at a later date, but Don would insist I play nice and those folks put in a more than "honest days" work out. But I was looking in on one of my go to let's start the ball rolling sites and came across this AH that it's rotor blade configuration is still beyond what's flying now as taken from the ref. "During flight most of the engine power went to the pusher propeller, and only 20-25% of power was delivered to the main rotor. This gave a top speed of about 390 km/h and ability to reach such speed at extremely low altitudes. Currently such design and is still used only on experimental helicopters.". That represents simply a highly efficient helo. And it flew (10 prototypes were ordered from Lockheed Martin.) in 1967!!
http://www.military-today.com/helico...6_cheyenne.htm




Don't know about you but the cockpit area sorta reminds me of the OV-10D BRONCO.

I stated years ago the USA would get back into the guided 70mm rocket business after dropping it and "my" USN being smart enough to continue funding it under the APKWS-II Program which we know has proved itself very successfully in combat. But it has to have a catchy name so the USA is calling it the TALON. I believe it might also carry a slightly larger warhead to give a better anti-armor capability though I can't remember for sure from earlier readings but not being fielded or submitted so that can wait. It should be operational soon but, here's an update as I've been tracking it's development.
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...copter-4332429

Might as well do it now; to address the last set of responses I would respectfully recommend from the Main Forum...Helicopter Armor Thread Posts #35 & #44. The rest will be done by PM.

Regards,
Pat