Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I asked the question in Discord already but the info there was that more info will pop up later.

so now is later 😄 are there infos if we get them to get rid of these pesky ka-50´s nd hind´s? 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only seen images of Japanese AH-64Ds carrying the wingtip mounted Stingers. Obviously not a capability that was necessary for real world conflicts in the last decades, but it would be very nice to have in DCS were things are more balanced.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i mean it is poible to use hellfire or gun but stinger would be nice to have^^

if i´m not mistaken they are able to carry them, but normally they dont do it. you could say the same for couple loadouts of other modules ^^

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC only Israel and Japanese AH64 are "wired" for it, but i might be wrong.

But, i also recall reading somewhere about an AH64 taking down a plane with hellfire, just can't find a source right now...

 

So here we go, on may 24 2001, an israeli AH64D shoot down a Cessna 152 with hellfire, they also take down an iranian *RQ170 copy* in 2018.


Edited by hotrod525
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

IIRC only Israel and Japanese AH64 are "wired" for it, but i might be wrong.

 

Indian, Taiwanese, South Korean, and Japanese AH-64s have Stinger capability. It's always been an option but has only been leveraged by those countries to this point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our longbow will be based on a US Army 2002 Block II so would not be realistic for our version. 

 

thanks

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would require a lot of development time and speculation on something unrealistic for the version ED is modeling. There's no mention of ATAS in the 2002 -10, so there's no documentation of the effect on the aircraft's performance in regards to drag or the CG, not to mention there's no documentation on how to utilize the system or how it would appear on the displays.


Edited by Tholozor
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

REAPER 51 | Tholozor

VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/

Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/

Link to post
Share on other sites

didnt the japanese apaches had them from the get go?

hm...lets see maybe we get them maybe not^^

as stated earlier would be nice to have.

 

so how did janes got their information in the 90´s for their games? was it just guessing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

ED isn't modeling a Japanese Apache. That's a different variant that's built locally through a licensed manufacturer, and not by Boeing.

 

Jane's isn't a fair comparison by any metric to what ED does, that's a massive far cry.


Edited by Tholozor
  • Like 5

REAPER 51 | Tholozor

VFA-136 (c.2007): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3305981/

Arleigh Burke Destroyer Pack (2020): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3313752/

Link to post
Share on other sites

LMP6GsK.png

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a213030.pdf - come on guys, it's a 32 years old story. Even the oldest AH-64A variant is able to deploy the Stinger, however US Army did not ordered the A2A "package" for most of their gunships and did not train the crew too (most of them -again).
Only a few "boxes" needed in the airframe and in the "dashboard", a few cable in the wings and some socket on the wingtips: and ready to go for A2A.
BTW: what do you think, why the Nav-light/strobe luminaries were officially removed from the wingtips of the AH-64D ? (..and got brackets for the dual ATAS launcher/pod)
Other addon(s) (tested) "package" were: sidewinders, sidearms and the "big punch" AGM-65 Mavericks but customers "threw" these weapons.

...The same goes by the US AirForce: F-15 Eagle CDIP (continuous(ly) displayed impact point) bombing capability. The only difference is: that's a 50 years old story.
1396429638965-1.jpg

img14.jpgimg12.jpgimg11.jpgimg4.jpgimg2.jpgimg41.jpgimg39.jpgimg37.jpgimg34.jpgimg29.jpgimg27.jpgimg19.jpg


Edited by NRG-Vampire
  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't use the movie Firebirds as evidence to support any argument. The avionics package in that movie was an early experimental version for the proposed post-Gulf War AH-64B upgrades, that eventually evolved into the D-model. No Alpha-models ever had MPDs. I'm fairly certain it was a marketing plug by McDonnel Douglas and/or the Army for funding for the B-model upgrades.

 

Having said that, regardless of whatever has been tested or proposed, I wouldn't count on them reversing their decision on the ATAS.


Edited by Raptor9
  • Like 7

Afterburners are for wussies...hang around the battlefield and dodge tracers like a man.

DCS Rotor-Head

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing my hat in the ring .....I would love ATAS (accurate or not.)

 

As an aside, I have no idea why ED are stating a 2002 model, when their manual incorporates Change 5, 2005.   It just says “2002” on the front cover.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, flybull said:

Just throwing my hat in the ring .....I would love ATAS (accurate or not.)

 

As an aside, I have no idea why ED are stating a 2002 model, when their manual incorporates Change 5, 2005.   It just says “2002” on the front cover.  

Yeah, I'm all for realism, but seeing as this is a flight sim, and not accurately portraying the real life order of battle on a modern battlefield, we'll likely be facing more air threats then a real world Apache.  ATAS capability would be extremely useful in game.

 

Although, this is not a "drop everything and implement this" feature, I'd be happy with getting a more-or-less complete Apache Longbow first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NRG-Vampire said:

BTW: what do you think, why the Nav-light/strobe luminaries were officially removed from the wingtips of the AH-64D ? (..and got brackets for the dual ATAS launcher/pod)

 

The original intent was to have additional hardpoints for customer-selected features, ie AMASE pods on Netherlands AH-64Ds. The US Army used the spot for the aft CMWS sensors, as the location allowed a wider field of view, unobstructed by the stabilator. ATAS was an option for customers, but not widely ordered until recently. Partly because with the FCR and AGM-114L, the aircraft has a potent combo of radar guided ARH missile capability with a similar or better range as Stinger.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just putting it out there that the AGM-114 with laser tracking is perfectly capable of tagging any of the larger helicopters out of the air.  Obviously not with 100% accuracy even without counter measures, I mean it is an AGM.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@NRG-VampireThe document you linked shows an evaluation - nothing more.

It shows that it might have been a solution but it clearly states a "preliminary" state and it lists some requirements necessary for the usage of the system - This is no proof that the system was used in any helicopter but these 2 prototypes/test beds.

 

Do not get me wrong, I would like to have the possibility to defend myself in the Apache but it is what it is, this system was never used and no Apache can "just receive it".

Read the document, it requires a changed cyclic/collective, a changed Pitot system etc etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kreisch said:

@NRG-VampireThe document you linked shows an evaluation - nothing more.

It shows that it might have been a solution but it clearly states a "preliminary" state and it lists some requirements necessary for the usage of the system - This is no proof that the system was used in any helicopter but these 2 prototypes/test beds.

 

Do not get me wrong, I would like to have the possibility to defend myself in the Apache but it is what it is, this system was never used and no Apache can "just receive it".

Read the document, it requires a changed cyclic/collective, a changed Pitot system etc etc.

Document refers to integration of ATAS onto "A" model birds, there is very little commonality between an "A" model  and a Block II D model.  How about leaving the decision on weather it is technically "do-able" to actual SMEs?.  

 

There are numerous open-source references to FMS customers using ATAS.

 

We all understand it was not done in US ARMY service, and ED may choose not to implement it due to historical accuracy reasons - but your post, is utter rubbish from a technical perspective.

 

If ED has the relevant information - it could be done.

 

Why do people talk so much crap about things they know nothing about?

 

@kreisch et al: wearing your tag "ED Closed Beta Testers Team" does not grant you any credibility.  

 

Any forum user identifying association as part of ED's team  should be held to higher standard in regard to presenting information.

 

Just sayin' 


Edited by flybull
Link to post
Share on other sites

@flybull, I just said that this exact document cannot be used as proof - that's it.

 

Edit: To the point "utter rubbish" - it's not about technical possibilities or not, it's only about "is it realistic for the affected model or not" - and therefore a document is either relevant or irrelevant, like you said 'It does not tell anything about the model we will receive'. If this is the case, do not refer to this document in a discussion, because it does not provide any relevant information.

 

Edit2: Literally 30 seconds using google

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/atas-to-become-a-standard-air-to-air-component-for-apache-ah-64e/

 

I do not understand why BigNewys statement isn't accepted

 

Quote

"Currently, Stinger integration on the Apache D model is conducted on a case-by-case basis for operators, where the missiles are mounted on the stub wingtips through a separate integration package. From 2018, the E model will become the common configuration for all future domestic US and FMS Apache sales, and will include a pylon-mounted Raytheon ATAS integration package as standard."

 


Edited by kreisch
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

like it or not, please be nice to each other.

 

thank you

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 2080Ti VENTUS GP, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to post
Share on other sites

So by the sound of it, we're back to that weird choice of not actually simulating the capabilities of an airframe but rather the doctrine of a specific end user?

 

14 hours ago, flybull said:

Document refers to integration of ATAS onto "A" model birds, there is very little commonality between an "A" model  and a Block II D model.  How about leaving the decision on weather it is technically "do-able" to actual SMEs?.

For one, because the SME's simply  might not know what's doable and what isn't. They are likely very familiar with what is done, which is not the same thing as what can be done. If we want simulations of the airframe, the latter is what matters, and the former is left for the mission designer to take into consideration. Confusing doctrine for capability only means you end up with an unrealistic result: you're not simulating the hardware any more, but the wetware that sits five steps removed from it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tippis said:

So by the sound of it, we're back to that weird choice of not actually simulating the capabilities of an airframe but rather the doctrine of a specific end user?

 

For one, because the SME's simply  might not know what's doable and what isn't. They are likely very familiar with what is done, which is not the same thing as what can be done. If we want simulations of the airframe, the latter is what matters, and the former is left for the mission designer to take into consideration. Confusing doctrine for capability only means you end up with an unrealistic result: you're not simulating the hardware any more, but the wetware that sits five steps removed from it.

You must really want those missiles if you are now going after SMEs. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...