Helo News game related.

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

The UH-1 was in development in the mid 50's (XH-40) and was delivered to the USA IN 1959/1960 depending on ref as the UH-1A dubbed "IROQUOIS". The series ran UH-1A - UH-1D, then in 1967 the UH-1D was replaced by the UH-1H which was the most powerful of the single engine types with the L-13 engine, also it was the most produced version. It would be "replaced" in 1971 by the twin engined (P&W PT-6 engines better known as simply "TwinPac") this was designated as the UH-1N.
I was just still surprised that the USAF is using UH-1N helos for the mission as described in the article. I think given the mission they could've scrapped up some BLACKHAWKS or LAKODAS from somewhere until they figured out what they really want flying on those bases.
Anyway, yes the original plan did call for USMC AH-1N airframes to be RESET to the UH-1Y however due to op tempo issues, force level downtime and the marginal cost difference, it was decided to go with 123 new modified UH-1N airframes to make the UH-1Y.
The first three paras of ref A covers this and more. Saved the refs because I found a couple of issues with the UH-1Y in the game that I just ran out of time to address in my last Patch Post choosing to focus on the AH-1Z, APACHE BLK III etc. plus weapons and associated other issues as you might remember. They will be addressed this time around. The CORPS makes due with what it has and finds a way to make it better, sounds like the IDF as well.
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/uh_1y/
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2006/4123.shtml
http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index..../story_ID/9574
http://www.helihub.com/2010/07/19/be...-1-production/

Pics:
XH-40 UH-1A
UH-1D UH-1D
UH-1N

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Update Alert!!! Well I was within the 6 month "swag" of this country getting the NH-90 TTH. A veritable coup on my part ladies and gentlemen if I do say so myself and I do! Much needed by this country though the acquisition was delayed by problems both within during the evaluations and outside the country since resolved. Yes New Zealand has finally got a modern up to date Med. lift helo...what!?!...New Zealand isn't in the game!! Refer to Pg. #2 Post #12 or better yet Patch Post Thread Pg. #5 Post #41. In this year of the extreme amount of changes forth coming just a reminder besides fact checking you don't forget to game check as well!
This message is sponsored by CGSDAS yes the; Concerned Gamers Society for Don and Andy's Sanity of which I've done my part in reducing it with that and other moments...live and learn or plan the timing of it better anyway!?!

Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Based on the recent post to the Patch Post thread, I'm going to do some more clean up work.

1. This deals with the TI/GSR issue raised above. I originally brought this up in the last Patch Post and thought to do so again with more information that's now posted below. They make for good reading.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...461/#more-6461
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/19280/
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/23537/

A related sidebar.
http://www.defpro.com/news/details/20902/

I will of course I will continue to track the APACHE Block III program as it could be a "game changer" as discussed in the last PP Thread.

Regards,
Pat

[DRG]

Thanks Pat. That's all for this year.


Don

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

If you have been to the USA and USMC Common Issues Thread by sabresandy then there's nothing new here. Work list item for the next Patch Post.

Here's what I've found just with APKWS II and with the AH-1Z. I will just highlight the issues here as good points were brought up here , but the problems run deeper as I looked into this and I don't know what happened with the AH-1Z as I thought it got into the patch as submitted originally. I'll need to check my crib notes on my hard copy for any differences as submitted. I'll further address this in the Helo Thread with credit to sabrasandy for the "scent" though we differ with Item 1. below.

1. Though APKWS had production runs (This is the date issue I believe.) already over the period as assigned to some UNITS already noted here in this thread (And others I've found.) it was not fielded operationally by the USMC until 3/12 in Afghanistan. See Ref. 1 and understand DID builds the source data into the articles, (Now) verifies status in the right side of the article and lists further and related reading at the bottom of the article. Ref 2 is my "shout out" to Canada.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...d-phase-02193/
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2013/...n-afghanistan/

1A. Affected USMC UNITS 172, 173, 192, 257, 502, 503 & 505. they should be armed with the HYDRA 70mm.

2. NAVAIR deemed the AH-1Z operationally ready in 9/10 after completing it's OPEVAL that month. I had submitted a fielding date of 6/11 based on I believe when they were deployed overseas. Ref. 3 & 4 (You'll have to click on Rotor Craft then click on H-1.) however states they became operational in 2/11. So though the game date and my date are within the "swag" there's only one thing to do and that's go to the middle or in this case the operational date of 2/11.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...1w-supercobra/
http://www.navair.navy.mil/index.cfm...ome.rotorcraft

2A. Affected USMC UNITS 172, 173, 192 again to 2/11 start
date. Also USMC UNIT 500 should be changed to 3/12 vice 9/12.

Refer to HELO Thread Pg.2 Post #12 from Feb. 13, 2011. Both these issues were at the time part of a much larger discussion as it referenced other Posts back to the APC Thread. God help me if this is a sign how this summer is going to go , this is on my work list now and will be moved to the Helo Thread for follow up.

Concerning the PAVE LOW the information presented is correct.
They flew their last combat mission in 9/08.
http://defensetech.org/2008/10/08/by...-hello-osprey/
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/fac...t.asp?id=12439 Note the armament section at the bottom.
http://www.mh-53pavelow.com/pave_history.html

We have two options here in the USMC OOB... 1) Simply DELETE both MH-53 helos UNITS 313/314. ADD both the SOAR
MH-47E/G helos we fixed and added in the last patch to support both the USMC Spec Op and USN SEALS. Makes life easier for the player and will allow the AI access to them in the USMC OOB. Also USMC CH-53E UNIT 646 needs to be upgraded to the MH-53M UNIT 314 mark.

2) Just make the date change to UNIT 314, however the CH-53E UNIT 646 will still need to be updated and I can support this change. It will however cause a redundancy issue. They are the same helos only difference lies in designation and names between the USAF, USMC and USN. Option 1) requires a little more work at each end, however it is the more relevant choice.
http://www.marines.com/operating-for...super-stallion

3) The CH-53K Program is still moving along. As you know I was on this from the start, so USMC UNIT 647 will be submitted for a change in it's TI/GSR in the 50/60 range and EW (Maybe.) based on the last updates I've gotten.

This is reminding me of a story about a fisherman and his "can of worms"!?! Still not as bad as those Turkish LEO's from 2/3 years ago!!


Regards,
Pat

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

This is coming home as well with the follow up posts (2) I wrote after making this Patch submission as they relate directly to the initial submission. I believe 98% got in; is a good number here. Thanks Don!

Patch Post #1 for 2013/2014
Well it has been another hectic year. The object here is to fix mistakes from last year from my Patch Posts on Pages 11/POST #105 (1) and 13/Post #123 (2) of this thread. Some of this was self inflicted which cast a net of confusion over some other equipment issues. Also I don’t think I’ll accomplish everything I hoped to this year but I promised I would address a couple of issues that were requested by you folks out there and they will be recognized as I get to them. For reasons of time, I will not reinvent the wheel here and will copy from the original posts. That info will be in quotations with the Thread Post noted if not from one of the above. Any items from the above refs will be indicated with either the (1) or (2) as shown above next to the original equipment item requiring action. All DEFPRO references will be removed. This will also show the importance once again in tracking equipment entered with follow up use of references in tracking said equipment to the field such as in A3 and Some Helo News below.

HELOS…
C1. SOUTH AFRICA/ ROOIVALK Mk I /CHANGE/UNITS 895 & 896/START DATE 4/2011 VICE 1/2006/END DATE 1/2020 VICE 11/2009/EW 8 VICE 6/REF UNIT 897/RADIO 92 FOR UNITS 189, 897 & 901 PARITY ISSUE WITHIN DATES FOR ROOIVALK AND ROOIVALK MK1//
(1) ”A1. SOUTH AFRICA/ADD/APR 2011/ROOIVALK Mk I/RESET/ADD/EW 8/TI/GSR 60/FCS +Current factors// The Mk I has undergone significant changes beyond just avionics and engine upgrades that lead to the safety issues that grounded the ROOIVALK for 1 ½ years…”
http://www.dod.mil.za/news/news%2020...20apr11%20.htm
http://www.saairforce.co.za/news-and...ivalk-block-1f
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...tional-355117/
http://www.deagel.com/news/South-Afr...000008623.aspx
http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/news115257.html

A1. USMC/ADD/JAN 2007/MH-47G CHINOOK/USE USA UNIT 275/RECOMMEND USING SLOT 728 DIRECTLY ABOVE THE SEAL UNITS//
(1) ”A3. USA/USMC/ADD/JAN 2007/MH-47G CHINOOK/USE UNIT 293/C6/P34-50 (Depending on equip.)/Port and Starboard mounted 2xM134 7.62 mm Miniguns just aft of the cockpit & 2xM240G 7.62mm at the last set of windows Rds UKN/ADD Refueling boom to the Starbrd. Side of the nose./Based on date requested with upgrades done to this point TI/GSR 60/EW 8/FC 6/FF 6/STAB. 5 or 6//…The 160th SOAR “Night Stalkers” (Under USASOC.) of Somalia and Bin Laden raid fame provide the bulk of helo operational support to the SEALS, Green Berets and Rangers amongst others….”
Please you know I have been as pro active about the slot issue as anyone to include volunteering to cull the fighters out of OOB’s that are TACAIR heavy. But in this case and the next one below I feel we do the player and AI wrong in not having these birds, they are after all the primary source and means of their operational transport in this case the SEAL’s and other specialized USMC units. Also how many times have we had to address the ALLIES option over the years? With this item we could at least use the machine gun simile on them!?!
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/mil...h47e/index.htm
http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/mil...G_overview.pdf
http://www.guncopter.com/mh-47g/
http://www.socom.mil/News/Pages/fina...Paircraft.aspx
http://www.socom.mil/sordac/PEO/Rota...G_Chinook.aspx
http://nightstalkers.americanspecial...ters/mh-47.php
http://www.americanspecialops.com/ph...ranger-sov.php
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/mi...dex.php?Page=1

A2. USMC/ADD/JAN 1994-JAN 2010/MH-47E CHINOOK/USE USA UNIT 293/RECOMMEND USING SLOT 727 DIRECTLY ABOVE THE SEAL UNITS//
(1) “C8. USA/MH-47/UNIT 293/Change name to MH-47E/Change End Date to JAN 2010/ADD to USMC OOB/See A3 above to include refs.//First change to simplify any future info that might cause a change to that particular helo. Second allows for the last couple of helos to be removed from service and prepped for the SLEP (RESET) Program and flight evaluations before being turned over to SOCOM…”
Again for the reasons noted above and also use those refs here to.

A3. MALAYSIA JUN 2013/THAILAND JUN 2015/ADD/EC 725 “SUPER” COUGAR/C5 P26/USE FRENCH UNIT 520//
(1) “A4. FRANCE JAN 2005/BRAZIL JUN 2012/MAYLAYSIA JUNE 2013/INDONESIA JUN 2014/
THAILAND JUNE 2015/ADD/EC 725 “SUPER” COUGAR/C5 P26/2 x FN MAG 60-30 250/or 1000Rd “Drums”/Optional 2 x 20mm POD mounted GIAT Cannons 180Rds/or 2 x 68mm THALES/or FORGE ZEEBRUGGE 19 Rd Rocket Launchers/TI/GSR 60/EW 8/Advanced composite add on armor is available and is used by the French. Mexico (The largest or next user of the EC 725.) supposedly has it also though not in the game. Malaysia’s are being reported to being equipped in the same manner as the French versions. Adjust armor ratings as you see fit for FRANCE and MAYLASIA/USE FRENCH UNIT 516 AS BASE//Concerning Thailand they have been very good about getting the equipment they have ordered, however, there are mixed reports about whether the contract has actually been signed or not. Based on this information…”
The French, Brazilian and Indonesian UNITS have a Carry 119 as opposed to 126. Is this due to weapons configuration issues? Malaysia seems to have been missed and has ordered more of these helos since last year. In regards to Thailand as noted above we had some concerns here about the contract; it was signed finally in the late spring or early summer after being delayed. I feel comfortable with this deal being good now.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ec725/
http://www.airrecognition.com/index....sk=view&id=331
http://www.eurocopter.com/site/en/ref/Missions_174.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/laad_...1_1404116.html.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...25-helicopters
http://helihub.com/2012/12/04/royal-...twelve-ec725s/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...copters-04959/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...EC725-for-SAR-
Missions-07542/

C2. USMC/CHANGE/UH-1Y/UNITS 320 & 321/HS RATING TO 3 VICE 0//
(1) “C5. USMC/UH-1Y/UNITS 320 & 321/CHANGE HS to 3 vice 0 as noted above./UNIT 320 replace 50 cal M2HB with GAU-21 50 cal./UNIT 321 replace HYDRA 70 with APKWS II ASM//The CORPS was “all in” by this time with the APKWS II ASM. See refs 7-10 below concerning GAU-21 50cal with Night Sights.”
As was noted in the intro this was a case of too much going on. This was paired with another similar entry originally directly above (Item C4) “C5”. The TI/GSR issue was corrected for all the UNITS involved here. The HS issue was missed in the “fog of war”, again these are all built the same in airframe and electronics. Concerning the GAU 21 it has been proven both on the range and in combat evaluations to be at least a 1/3 more accurate then the previously and now not used M2HB. Suhiir I believe has this weapon in her USMC OOB. It’s just something to consider for next year at least.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...program-03541/
http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/Chronol...early/2008.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/uh1y-huey/
http://www.naval-technology.com/proj...ty-helicopter/
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2006/4123.shtml
http://www.thebaynet.com/news/index..../story_ID/9574
http://www.asdnews.com/news/30989/GA...with_UH-1Y.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...0109-mcn01.htm
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...gau21_010410w/
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_50cal-M3M_MG.htm
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=11442
http://www.deagel.com/news/Upgraded-...000009578.aspx
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...d-phase-02193/
This last ref provides an outdate on the APKWS II ASM with the new Mk 152 warhead that will also be used on the HARRIER and A-10 besides the USMC helos, to be fielded in 2012. Note: I believe 2013/2014 as of this writing will be better for HARRIER use will back check for next year.

C3. SOUTH AFRICA/ROOIVALK/UNIT 188/CHANGE End Date to NOV 2009/DONE/YES SEE BELOW DONE//
(1) “C6. SOUTH AFRICA/ROOIVALK/UNITS 189, 190 and 899 - 902/CHANGE End Date to NOV 2009.//This helo is very advanced featuring 4th Gen integrated image intensifier and FLIR systems, TopOwl sight display for integrated weapons system control.” And from the end of the Para…” The only question I have here is should the TI/GSR be improved for the above units? Also note that the last two refs deal with the Non MK I ROOIVALK.”
Well a little teamwork helped here with Don understanding where I was going with this originally without me asking the question; if you will; I was asking. Huh? With time in some cases newer information comes to light or was missed in the beginning. As I’ve noted in the past this was a very, very advanced helo ahead of it’s time. Focus on 4th Gen and my original question at the end. As I said Don knew where I was heading so all the above UNITS had the TI/GSR increased to 50. Except for UNIT 190 because well, it was a empty slot!! Thanks Don!!
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...-ah2-rooivalk/
http://www.military-today.com/helico...2_rooivalk.htm

NEW ITEMS…
A4. IRAQ/Mi-35M/ADD/JAN 2014/USE RUSSIAN UNIT 943 with weapons variations as you see fit//
A5. BRAZIL/Mi-35M/ADD/APR 2010/USE RUSSIAN UNIT 943 with weapons variations as you see fit//
http://www.airforce-technology.com/p...mi-35m-hind-e/
A6. IRAQ/Mi-28NE/ADD/JAN 2014/USE RUSSIAN UNITS 370-373//
These will share the refs below. This deal was in the making for about two years now and I have been tracking it since Iraq approached the U.S. about buying the APACHE AH-64D and later “rumors” surfaced of interest in the GUARDIAN AH-64E. Apparently due to the instability within Iraq and for security issues related to the technology and other factors the deal never really got done. So Iraq turned to Russia which in trying to expand it’s influence again into the Middle East. A deal was struck in 2012 and almost came apart in early 2013 amid charges of corruption. This issue was resolved early this past summer. There was articles saying the training cycle was disrupted and deliveries were started in 10/2013 and will be completed by the end of this year for 40 of the above helos. I’m holding off on the Ka-52 ALLIGATOR and PANTSIR-S1 AA Systems; until further information becomes available on delivery dates.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/june_...m_0306131.html
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131...-Contract.html
http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131...-Gunships.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-Ne...0551383926479/
http://www.janes.com/article/29741/i...35-helicopters
http://www.iraq-businessnews.com/201...n-helicopters/
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56

Well that went alright…I hope!?! And no Helo issues were noted on the second Patch Post from last year.

Some Helo news…
Have I mentioned the importance of following up before…I guess it can get old but…
From last year in the second Patch Post concerning the GUARDIAN AH-64E; Taiwan is on track as submitted. The second batch should have or shortly will arrive by this writing.
http://www.dmilt.com/index.php?optio...asia&Itemid=56
http://www.army-technology.com/news/...-batch-from-us

Regards,
Pat
December 4, 2013

From Posts #155 & #156...

Don,
Concerning the IRAQI Helos (A4 & A6), there was no reported disruption in the training during the temporary breakdown of the deal as discussed. I didn't catch the wording error when I realized that Brazils OOB didn't have the Mi-35M. I could've sworn it was in the OOB when it was orginally discussed and submitted ~3 years ago and I checked it I thought as being there. Mad scramble for the ref and submission insued "before the (edit) clock ran out" on the matter.

Regards,
Pat

Don,
Clock ran out while researching the BRAZIL HIND. It's in there as properly local named AN-2 SABRA UNIT 903. However it should be upgraded and for IRAQ added using the RUSSIAN UNIT 943 as just submitted. Have articles that were posted in the HELO Thread saying Russia was going to buy and or update it's current fleet of Mi-24 HIND's based on the fact the Mi-35M was more advanced.
http://airheadsfly.com/tag/russian-helicopters/feed/
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hind/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...opters-356827/
http://mymodelplanes.wordpress.com/2...ce-for-russia/ See bottom as reported by avaitionweek.com
http://www.sldinfo.com/russian-air-p...nsive-buildup/
Bought 40 of them.

Back to bed, new days off are throwing me off my game here.

Regards,
Pat

It's how the work goes sometimes. You start seeing things that both are and aren't there.

Suhiir if you see this some of the answers you seek are in this post and POSTS 26 & 28 before this one. Just don't get "cheap" on me.

One more to get home!

Regards,
Pat

[Suhiir]

The V8.0 USMC OOB has:
##############################
Unit#314 MH-47E Chinook 01/1995-01/2010 - 2xM134 Gat, Vis=40 FC=5 RF=5 Stab=4
Unit#316 MH-47G Chinook 01/2008-12/2020 - 2xM134 Gat 2xM240, Vis=60 FC=6 RF=6 Stab=6

So just need to change Unit#316 to 01/2007-12/2020 and FC=8
##############################
Unit#649 MV-22B Osprey 03/2006-12/2020 - 1xM2 HMG, Vis=15
Unit#650 MV-22B+ Osprey 01/2009-12/2020 - 1xM134 Gat 1xM2 HMG, Vis=40

Didn't include the MMG version because it's only around for a couple years and my "rule of thumb" is - If it only exists for less then 3 years don't include it else the OOB will swell like a balloon.

The best info I can find indicates they only mount the M134 if they know they're going into a Hot LZ (since it reduces cargo capacity and blocks the Hell Hole (which is used to rig cargo slings)
##############################
Unit#320 UH-1Y Gunship 09/2008-12/2020 - 2xGAU-19 1xAPKWS 1xGAU-21, Vis=40, Armor=3
Unit#321 UH-1Y Gunship 09/2008-12/2020 - 2xM134 1xAPKWS 1xGAU-21, Vis=40, Armor=3
Unit#322 UH-1Y Gunship 09/2008-12/2020 - 2xM134 1xAPKWS 1xGAU-21, Vis=30, Armor=3
Unit#323 UH-1Y Venom 09/2008-12/2020 - 1xMMG, Vis=15, Armor=2 (troop carrier version)
Unit#883 UH-1Y Venom 09/2008-12/2020 - 2xGAU-21, Vis=60, Armor=2 (observer version)
##############################
Cheap?
I may be a Harlot but never a cheap one!

[FASTBOAT TOUGH]

Suhiir,
I don't know what happened here but know after every patch gets released I go back to see what made it and how the numbers fell as I requested them on my inputs. The USA MH-47G looked correct to me two years ago but now I'm not so sure as it looks all wrong to me now which affects the USMC one as well. My only note I made was to address this helo for the USMC the following year, which we know has be done. They should be the same in both OOBs. Now I have work to do. Let's focus on the USMC MH-47G as it will be the correct representative version for both. I'll be split screen between USA UNIT 275 and USMC UNIT 316 to give you the correct numbers. I also did some checks against the MH-47E as well i.e. Cost etc. Which ever unit is correct is your guide for the wrong one to fix. Ready here I go...
1. START DATE: USA 1/2007 is correct. USMC 10/2008 is wrong.
2. END DATE: USA 1/2020 is wrong. USMC is 12/2020 is correct.
3. COST: USA 271 correct. USMC 311 is wrong.
4. CREW: Both USA and USMC are wrong. Should be 6 /two pilots/1 crew chief/4 gunners. Note: Originally it was planned that only three MGs would be required and 5 crew it would be changed by time it was fielded to current configuration.
5. CARRY: USA 244 is correct. USMC 239 is wrong.
6. RADIO: Both USA and USMC are @ 91. Is 92 max? And would it make any difference? If not leave it.
7. STEEL HF: USA 12 is wrong. USMC 14 is correct.
8. STEEL HS: USA 0 is wrong. USMC 2 is correct.
9. THE BONUS: The Starbrd. side refueling boom would be GREAT!! That's what separates these from ALL standard non-SOCOM Chinook helos world wide. Of course this would apply to the MH-47E as well.

Refer to Post #26 Item A3 of this thread.

I need to hit the rack good night!

Regards,
Pat

[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.