New CH-67 Huron

[Stekelenburg 10]

Hello everybody!

What do you think about the new Transport Helicopter called the CH-67 Huron? On the ArmA 3 Birthday livestream the rear of the Huron was showed and the name in the SITREP yesterday. The Huron is a futuristic Chinook, just like the Ghosthawk was based on the Blackhawk. I personally like it, as long it's not too sci-fi.

[Rovka 14]

I didn't expect less then a futuristic crossover from BIS. But indeed, as someone said; It seems to be a fine replacement for the Mohawk. But it's said that to pilot it, one has to have the DLC, instead of it being in the standard arsenal...

But I cannot say wether I like the the Chiron, which depends on how she handles flight. I just hope there'll be good default-sound to it. Kind of like how a real Chinook helicopter sounds like, but then a tad bit less loud perhaps? :p

[the_demongod 31]

Am I missing something? was it added to dev branch?

It seems great so far, I can't wait to actually fly it. I'm curious as to how much it can lift. Obviously MRAPs and APCs, but can it carry MBTs?

[roberthammer 582]

I like to see it from sides but it looks good , i really like Chinooks so i wonder how the Huron will sound like (hopefully not some cheap sound heh)

[semiconductor 309]

No. I don't like "let's take 30-50 year old vehicle and make all its angles sharp 'cause thatz tha futar" approach.

[warlord554 2065]

No. I don't like "let's take 30-50 year old vehicle and make all its angles sharp 'cause thatz tha futar" approach.

Agreed. A four tilt rotor or something along those lines would have fit more than a chinook with new panels

[mistyronin 1181]

Am I missing something? was it added to dev branch?

It seems great so far, I can't wait to actually fly it. I'm curious as to how much it can lift. Obviously MRAPs and APCs, but can it carry MBTs?

I hardly doubt that the new helo will be able to sling load APCs. A3 helicopter's max weight are based on their real counterparts; technically it shouldn't even be able to carry an armed MATV ( MRAP ) which weight 12.5 tons. Neither a HEMTT.

The Chinook max is less than 12 tons.

Edited September 17, 2014 by MistyRonin

[funkotron 4]

yes i like it.

perhaps they can add a Sikorsky CH-54 Tarhe

[odie0351 67]

I hardly doubt that the new helo will be able to sling load APCs. A3 helicopter's max weight are based on their real counterparts; technically it shouldn't even be able to carry an armed MATV ( MRAP ) which weight 12.5 tons. Neither a HEMTT.

The Chinook max is less than 12 tons.

"IF" they make it so this new heavy can lift the hunter I'll be okay with that, just out of the fact that there's not really much between the offroads and MRAPS as far as cargo weight goes right now, so we need some kinda reason to use the new birds over the vanilla ones. And who knows, being as there so much easier to destroy than their real world counterparts, maybe BI's MRAPS have had enough of their armor removed to fit the weight limits:p

As for the Huron itself, I need more than a fuzzy pic of her ass to decide rather or not I'll ride it:o

[CaptainObvious 95]

Judging by that one pic I've seen of her, yes.

I expect it to be no less than on par with the Ghosthawk and the Wipeout what comes to visuals.

[PuFu 4600]

is there an image of this Huron?

[roberthammer 582]

is there an image of this Huron?

Yes , only this one > https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BxViXUmIMAAl-XW.jpg:large

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

As for now I don't know. If it's similar to the Wipeout then I'll probably dislike it, that kind of look might be a better fit for a chopper than for a jet, but can't tell for now.

I hope that this will be the only "refurbished" chopper from the DLC, otherwise I'd probably regret buying the DLC pack in advance.

[ProfTournesol 956]

It's hard to judge from that picture honestly. But a large transport copter is welcomed.

Edited September 17, 2014 by ProfTournesol
typo you bloody French

[chortles 263]

The presumable sling-load capacity for the Huron would (assuming 1:1 with real-life) be far above and beyond (almost triple) of the Ghosthawk and Mohawk... unfortunately, due to the military factions' overwhelming tendencies towards heavier vehicles, that still wouldn't be enough to airlift most of the vanilla vehicles, and I'm not sure just which if any vanilla vehicles in the game are actually in the range between the maximum capacities of the Ghosthawk/Mohawk (4 t) and of the Huron (presumably 11 t) that would allow the Huron to really "have a substantive in-game point" beyond being a tandem-rotor.

One other take:

I don't give a [expletive] that the chopper is all angled and stealthy looking, I care that it represents the heavy dual rotor chopper that picks shit up and holds a lot of people.

[Victim9l3 11]

No. I don't like "let's take 30-50 year old vehicle and make all its angles sharp 'cause thatz tha futar" approach.

Amen. I personally, absolutely hate the ghosthawk. It looks stupid TO ME. Then they did it to the A10, which will probably never have a stealth version, and giving the engines a triangle shape makes it look like a bad (yes BAD) 1980 scifi movie idea of future jets. I love the chinook. The MOST ridiculous thing about it is that they made it look "stealthy" and then in the same paragraph they said it's too big to be stealthy. Why design a vehicle to look stealthy, when you know that there is no way in hell that it would EVER be stealthy?

And the icing on the cake is that Arma 3 HAS NO STEALTH. Stealth is a punch line. Nothing is stealth.

I hate to ALWAYS look like the bad guy who does nothing but complain. But I love the game. When they do things that don't make sense, it drives me insane. Most of Arma3 makes no sense. I could say a million good things about the game, but it wouldn't make the game better. Besides there are enough players that say good things. The game only gets better by fixing the bad things.

And after saying that, looking at the picture from behind of the Huron, it looks like it might look good. So at least if it looks good, I can still use it and forget about all those bad things.

But they could always work on the important things. Like the Karts. Thanks for wasting time on that rather than fix how Madrids get stuck trying to get out of water.

Edited September 17, 2014 by Victim9l3

[slatts 1978]

Remember there is a difference between vehicles with RCS features and stealth. You say why make a vehicle stealth is if its too big? Then why are navies working on ships with angled sides to deflect radar waves? To reduce their RCS, not to make them disappear.

The engines on the Wipeout were said to be more armour then stealth features by one of the devs.

Also the karts was to test out the new DLC system. With funds (some not all) going to a worthy cause that of the Red Cross. That's not time wasting.

[Smurf 12]

A meaner version of the Chinook? WHY NOT?

Bring it.

[mistyronin 1181]

Remember there is a difference between vehicles with RCS features and stealth. You say why make a vehicle stealth is if its too big? Then why are navies working on ships with angled sides to deflect radar waves? To reduce their RCS, not to make them disappear.

The engines on the Wipeout were said to be more armour then stealth features by one of the devs.

I think they mean that the "stealth" designs don't affect with the gameplay, so they are a bit gratuitous. They could delay the targeting, etc.

IMO the Ghosthawk and the new "stealth" Chinook, are not that game breaking as in RL there's a is at least a secret Blackhawk and a Chinook with certain stealth features ( that haven't been seen publically besides accidents ).

[chortles 263]

@ Victim9l3: I'm pretty certain that the Ghosthawk and the Huron are more or less entirely based on the public reporting of "stealth Black Hawks" (even though the only publicly available photographs were of a tail section) and on the rumor(s) that there were also "stealth Chinooks" used in reserve at the Abbottabad raid... just as MistyRonin said right above me.

Remember there is a difference between vehicles with RCS features and stealth. You say why make a vehicle stealth is if its too big? Then why are navies working on ships with angled sides to deflect radar waves? To reduce their RCS, not to make them disappear.

I'm pretty certain that that was the point of "stealth"... you're not going to make something outright disappear on radar, but if you can get it closer before detection and/or make it appear small enough that its radar return could be interpreted as being that of something else... to that end, I'm also reminded of the work/proposals for "stealthier" upgrades of what had previously been non-stealth airframes.

[slatts 1978]

I'm pretty certain that that was the point of "stealth"... you're not going to make something outright disappear on radar, but if you can get it closer before detection and/or make it appear small enough that its radar return could be interpreted as being that of something else... to that end, I'm also reminded of the work/proposals for "stealthier" upgrades of what had previously been non-stealth airframes.

Aye, but a typhoon for example would have RCS reducing features, but it's not designed as a outright "stealth" ala F-22. That's the angle I'm going at here. Disappear was the wrong word to use in my last post I'll admit.

Quick edit, I know Arma does almost nothing for stealth. But just giving a real world comparison to explain my interpretation of the Huron.

[chortles 263]

Aye, but a typhoon for example would have RCS reducing features, but it's not designed as a outright "stealth" ala F-22. That's the angle I'm going at here. Disappear was the wrong word to use in my last post I'll admit.

You ain't making 'em disappear -- especially not a helicopter -- but if you can at least get the helicopter past local non-allied air defense radars... ;) and heck, there's even stuff like the UH-60L (and thus later variants) being stated to have 'heat signature'-during-hover-reducing capability to better defend against IR-based guidance.

Quick edit, I know Arma does almost nothing for stealth. But just giving a real world comparison to explain my interpretation of the Huron.

Same here -- though considering that a "stealth Black Hawk" existed IRL (while a stealth Chinook in the same incident was rumored) I get the sense that the Huron is meant to mesh with the Ghosthawk as "former SOF designs now available to the regular Army" -- a not-unheard of trend IRL and a design aesthetic previously used for the NATO faction infantry in A3 early on before the default helmets were changed.

[mistyronin 1181]

I think the point is to create helos that with certain budget measures can be a bit more stealth to certain enemy radars.

For example the weird rotor is designed to mix the air to mask a bit the characteristic helo movement, not make it disappear. Also the hull materials, the possibility to hide the wheels, etc.

I think the key word is " reduce signature " more than pure " stealth ".

My hometown seems to be some kind of hub for Chinook exercises, and I can promise that even at high altitude these monsters make a LOT of noise. So I guess make that disappear would be impossible, but mask and reduce it, could be feasible.

[chortles 263]

Uh-huh -- and even the helicopters on the Abbottabad raid were overheard... just after they'd breached Pakistani airspace.

[squirrel0311 16]

I can’t tell from the picture of it but I’m not against stealthier looking features.

I don’t know if they can improve the Arma 3 sound system but…. I hope it has Airbus Blue Edge rotors.