Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DaemonPhobos

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think you guys are starting to take it too seriously, it's not necessary that the aircraft gets to the level you have to sign virtual DA-forms, prepare aircraft performance planning cards and perform exterior inspections. We have to be reasonable in our goals, the info required to operate the aircraft is mostly contained on the TM and multiple documents scattered around the internet. There is some solid info explaining weapon and aircraft performance too. As long as the aircraft is compliant with the real procedures listed at the manuals and it has an overall accurate avionics
  2. Raptor is right. Some of the info in that site is correct though. JTRS didn't make it to IOC AH-64Es (100% sure) and I see no hints it ever got integrated at all according to multiple sources, It would become redundant with Link-16 integration too. While the apache has a mechanical flight control system, it also has the flight management computer that provides hold modes, automatic stabilator control, and stability command augmentation system. It's correct, it has new rotor blades, 701D engines and some of the avionics and LRUs inside of the EFABs have changed from the ones
  3. This is a very minor detail that may or not be helpful in the future, but the cyclic trigger has a cover in order to prevent accidental fire. The TEDAC also has one.
  4. While the 64D LBA is a very complex aircraft avionics wise, it has the largest amount of available information out of any other aircraft in DCS. All operating procedures are covered, navigation, data management, comms, weapon systems, countermeasures (ASE), EPs and limitations. There are also some pretty good numbers on the performance of many systems and weapons and there are many SMEs that help covering the little details you can't get from documents alone. I wouldn't be worried about it being secret at all as long as ED decides to implement the mentioned systems.
  5. Well, we know that the fuze detonates about 150 meters before the target and that the inherent dispersion of the MK66 motors is around 10 milliradians. I don't have figures yet for the dispersion of the flechettes themselves but from a 150 meters distance it can't be so bad. Terminal ballistics are too complex to calculate, it has kinetic energy similar to a low caliber rifle bullet, so I don't believe it would be an instantenous kill unless you score a hit on the head or CNS. But we have seen videos of hellfire missiles hitting trucks in the engine block, then the occupants run
  6. I wonder the same too. Well, the older, non-crashworthy 230 gal fuel tanks are certainly available and documented on US D models from at least 2002 up to 2011, so it can have the extended range kit installed in the wings. But I see they actually never use them because in the US they prefer the combo-pak or the 130 IAFS. IMHO, If the thing was authorized, then it should be available.
  7. Each M255 carry like almost 1200 flechettes inside, and you may be firing pairs or ripples (or a 76 rocket salvo if you want to crash your PC), that's definitely going to cause a lag spike. Modelling the damage effect to soft targets is quite complex. However, the flechette rocket is basically an obligatory weapon to add, the weapon is listed as an authorized armament, the 64D has the 6FL fuze setting for firing them with the M439 airburst fuze.
  8. It's worth noting that no CMWS means no flares too, because the payload modules are dependant of the CMWS ECU to work. You would be restricted to 30 chaff only. Integrating stingers requires: Removal of CMWS EOMS Removal of flare payload modules Special pylon adaptor on the wingtips (you can see them often on Japanese ah-64DJP). The Weapons processor has growth capability for ATAS missile capabilities, however, apparently it only has I/O interfaces on pylons 2 and 3 for air to air missile fire interlock commands, not on the wingtips. A new missile uncage swit
  9. Ermm.. Exactly, what's the reason of you telling that the current aircraft is not accurate? As of now We have like... 4 cockpit screenshots, and one partial external picture, and basically no real info about date and lot. We only know it's a blk 2 with M-TADS and CMWS. I understand sometimes ED may mix different tapes and software to compensate for documentation gaps. But calling the aircraft inaccurate at this stage is ridiculous. Of course, the final product will not be a 100% accurate representation of the real aircraft, because there is a lot of stuff tha
  10. Let's see. ED is modelling their LBA based on a specific US army AH-64D blk 2. There is no info to prove that there is any sort of historical inaccuracy in the currently implemented systems. An US army apache, as it is, cannot mount ATAS missiles, neither has the required hardware and software to fire them, I already explained the details on that. It would be like adding AMRAAMs to the F-14A. Besides, even if you ignore this fact, there is an evident lack of documentation on ATAS employment from late H-64 platforms.
  11. I'm not going to argue wether if it's realistic or not. Does anyone here know how would the ATAS symbology even look like? The missile icons on the MPD? Is it displayed as ATA or ATAS on the labels? How would you uncage the missile? The A-A missile uncage button was replaced by the Target store button, so good luck finding another button for that. Does it have a Seeker FOV circle on the ihadss? What are their safety inhibits? Maximum lock range? Seeker gimbal limits? Can you use the SKR as an acquisition source? Does it need a special boresight page? Does it use the standar
  12. Well, TADS boresight is pretty much automatized, SANUC also and it takes a couple of seconds, AWS DH is optional and the IHADSS boresight would be equivalent to the planned HMCS coarse and fine alignments on the FA-18C. It's not really that much of a complicated process. Why would one want to simulate this? Because, i personally believe (and I suppose other people thinks the same) that we play DCS because we want to know how to fly the real aircraft as close and detailed as possible.
  13. Well the Apache's is capable of supporting the Tri-Service PRF codes and the USAF, Hellfire and Copperhead PIM laser codes. So, yeah, pretty much it should be capable of it.
  14. M255 rockets are pretty much confirmed by the manual, along with MPSM, M229, illumination, smoke, etc. The only ones that were not available by that era were the M247 heat and the M282 multipurpose ones apparently. Now, the damage model requires an overhaul in order to make them effective, both flechette an HE. (And the 30mm gun rounds, they have a very interesting butterfly shaped frag pattern.) Something very cool about the Apache is that, while having only 3 weapons in theory, it's still versatile because you can mix a lot of different rockets and missiles. Radar aided L
  15. There are no arguments here that could be proven right or wrong. APKWS is possible to load in any apache. APKWS is anachronistic therefore inaccurate. Those are facts, the rest, are all personal opinions. ED wants historically accurate aircraft, not historically accurate scenarios. ED develops the Apache module, we develop the scenarios for the aircraft. An apache with said software never had an APKWS in the US army.
  • Create New...