AH-64 glass armored or not?

[CrazyGman]

I was wondering if we could get a definitive answer for this, as this is constantly obfuscated. Is any of the glass on the apache amoured, Or is it all just plexy? From the thickness and angles it seems like it's just plexy. I know on the cobra (which has minimal if any armor at all) the glass is plexi, based on how heavy armor can be and the fact the apache uses movement and it's sensor suite to stay at safe distances I wonder if any apache pilots or techs can put this topic to rest.

[AlphaOneSix]

The four side windows and the one above the pilot is acrylic plexiglass. The windows above and in front of the copilot are tempered glass. There is a transparent blast shield between the two pilots that's made of polycarbonate acrylic laminate that's about an inch and a quarter thick. The transparent blast shield is the only one that could be considered "armored".

 

boeing_apache_-AH64-12021Final.pdf (ppgaerospace.com)

Edited July 20, 2021 by AlphaOneSix

[kseremak]

Not really, as AlphaOneSix shown. Different philisophy i think. Apache is maneuverable, it has very good visibility with big transparent canopy, but offering little protection when i.e. Mi-28 is heavy, not particularry nimble, it has tiny windows with restricted visibility, similar to Ka-50, but with thick bulletproof 22mm/42mm glass protecting well against small arms fire.

 

 

Similar with maneuverable A-10 with huge bubble canopy offering great all around visibility at the cost of protection, when Su-25 has lower maneuverability and restricted visibility with small canopy blended with the fuselage but offering better protection in case of hit.

US - if you fire i'll see it and i'll dodge. USSR - if you fire i may not see it, but i'll be able to withstand the hit.

[naizarak]

6 hours ago, kseremak said:

Not really, as AlphaOneSix shown. Different philisophy i think. Apache is maneuverable, it has very good visibility with big transparent canopy, but offering little protection when i.e. Mi-28 is heavy, not particularry nimble, it has tiny windows with restricted visibility, similar to Ka-50, but with thick bulletproof 22mm/42mm glass protecting well against small arms fire.

Similar with maneuverable A-10 with huge bubble canopy offering great all around visibility at the cost of protection, when Su-25 has lower maneuverability and restricted visibility with small canopy blended with the fuselage but offering better protection in case of hit.

US - if you fire i'll see it and i'll dodge. USSR - if you fire i may not see it, but i'll be able to withstand the hit.

it's not so much about dodging fire as it is not being shot in the first place

[Hammer1-1]

the seats offer kevlar shielded blinders that minimize the pilots silhouette that also allows the pilots to see outside the cockpit. Those are the fold in panels that encompass the pilot when he is seated. The Huey has a similar system; you can see the folding pieces when you close the hatch. The glass doesnt need to be armored, that doesnt mean the pilot doesnt have protection from small arms. IIRC, its also A500 armored.

Edited July 21, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[Tank50us]

10 hours ago, naizarak said:

it's not so much about dodging fire as it is not being shot in the first place

 

Yeah, if you can see the guy with the AK before he can raise his rifle and shoot, and shoot him, you won't need the protection, or, you can get into cover and avoid taking the hit in the first place.

[Lurker]

What is the typical engagement range of the Apache? Several km's away when using Hellfires? What about when it's being used in a close air support role against infantry? I really have no idea, I'm genuinely curious at how the Apache is used in it's close air support role, considering that it's cannon is mostly an area suppression weapon. 

[AlphaOneSix]

In support of ground units that are engaged with enemy units, the typical engagement range for an Apache is around 1,000-1,500 meters.

[Lurker]

18 hours ago, AlphaOneSix said:

In support of ground units that are engaged with enemy units, the typical engagement range for an Apache is around 1,000-1,500 meters.

 

How about the tactics used in that type of scenario, is it typical to hover and engage the enemy or would you do passes of some kind or orbits around the engagement zone?

[AlphaOneSix]

Well the type of engagements they've been involved in the past 20 years, they just orbit, usually a couple miles away from the target area (maybe 3,000-ish meters). When they are asked to engage something, they typically turn in from their orbit, do an attack run, and return to their orbit.

[Hummingbird]

Based on the gun camera footage available most engagements with the chain gun appear to happen between 1 to 1.5 km (seen a few past 2 km too though), where'as attacks with guided missiles tend to be from 2 km or more it seems. Unguided rockets attacks appear to be the closest range ones. Again though, this is based solely on the footage available on liveleak and other sources, what the general rule of thumb amongst the crews is I have no idea.

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by Hummingbird

[kseremak]

On 8/3/2021 at 4:01 PM, Lurker said:

What is the typical engagement range of the Apache? Several km's away when using Hellfires? What about when it's being used in a close air support role against infantry? I really have no idea, I'm genuinely curious at how the Apache is used in it's close air support role, considering that it's cannon is mostly an area suppression weapon. 

 

In low intensitiy conflict Apache can simply orbit even at 6,000-10,000ft and "rain hate with impunity", without any risk, but i doubt it's exciting at all.

 

In more interesting scenario with at least partially organized military, like second Gulf War, against mixed threats, like raid at Karbala, things are way more interesting and less obvious. Apache had to fly low not to get taken by SAM, being constantly shoot at with small caliber weapon from different directions and it was not possible to simply chose and dictate the engagement distance.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala

 

[jubuttib]

On 8/3/2021 at 5:01 PM, Lurker said:

considering that it's cannon is mostly an area suppression weapon. 

Learning this really surprised me. Considering how many times I'd heard them go on about how good they can aim it just by looking at a target, I assumed it was going to be a much more precision weapon. But in another thread here it said that the design specs were "1 round out of 50 should hit a 3x3 meter target 84% of the time from 1000 meters away", and "75% of rounds should hit a 50x50 meter target area 75% of the time. Really wasn't expecting 25% of my rounds not hitting within a 50x50 area from 1000 meters away...

[Glimmer]

On 7/20/2021 at 3:35 PM, kseremak said:

US - if you fire i'll see it and i'll dodge. USSR - if you fire i may not see it, but i'll be able to withstand the hit.

 

[Avimimus]

On 7/20/2021 at 8:35 AM, kseremak said:

Similar with maneuverable A-10 with huge bubble canopy offering great all around visibility at the cost of protection, when Su-25 has lower maneuverability and restricted visibility with small canopy blended with the fuselage but offering better protection in case of hit.

US - if you fire i'll see it and i'll dodge. USSR - if you fire i may not see it, but i'll be able to withstand the hit.

 

Good points - except this one, which, I think, misses the mark.

 

Based on the data posted by Eagle Dynamics the Su-25 was actually engineered to sustain high turn rates at close to its maximum speed, and could easily be described as much more manoeuvrable throughout its envelope. However, it seems to have sacrificed weapon load to do this (i.e. the A-10 is better in the low-subsonic range and can carry a larger bombload overall relative to its engine power).

[AlphaOneSix]

20 hours ago, jubuttib said:

how good they can aim it just by looking at a target

 

Aiming the AWS with the HMD has never been accurate at all, and is therefore very rarely used. By far and away the most common (and accurate) method is for the CPG to WAS the AWS on the TEDAC, use the TADS at the selected sight, and use the LRF/D for laser ranging.

[jubuttib]

7 hours ago, AlphaOneSix said:

 

Aiming the AWS with the HMD has never been accurate at all, and is therefore very rarely used. By far and away the most common (and accurate) method is for the CPG to WAS the AWS on the TEDAC, use the TADS at the selected sight, and use the LRF/D for laser ranging.

With my limited experience of trying to target things with just my head (rather than my eyes), I suspected that, and yet they keep banging on about it... 

[Lurker]

12 hours ago, AlphaOneSix said:

is for the CPG to WAS the AWS on the TEDAC, use the TADS at the selected sight, and use the LRF/D for laser ranging.

 

The what now with the what something? 

 

Could someone translate please? (Maybe the Apache isn't for me after all....)

[Wychmaster]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb AlphaOneSix:

 

Aiming the AWS with the HMD has never been accurate at all, and is therefore very rarely used. By far and away the most common (and accurate) method is for the CPG to WAS the AWS on the TEDAC, use the TADS at the selected sight, and use the LRF/D for laser ranging.

I think the HMD aiming is just meant to be a method to respond to immediate threads like MANPADS. If something is in your visual range so that you can actually use the HMD, you are way to close. Also saw a video where an actual Apache Pilot basically just said that. Think it was an interview by the grim reapers.

 

However, in DCS, where you don't have to fear to lose your life, it will probably be a lot of fun, especially in VR. Flew a small training mission attacking troops inside of a city yesterday with the Ka-50 and when I ran out of missiles, I decided to have some fun. I flew close above the ground between the buildings and used the HMD to fire the 30mm at everything that appeared in my FOV. Had tons of fun, but the problem with the Ka-50 is the limited area that you can cover with the gun. You constantly need to turn the helicopter, especially if something pops up on the left, which costs valuable time. The Apache can turn its gun almost 90 degrees to each side... this will be so much fun ... hope they announce pre order soon. Summer is almost over

 

[AlphaOneSix]

On 8/19/2021 at 2:20 AM, Lurker said:

 

The what now with the what something? 

 

Could someone translate please? (Maybe the Apache isn't for me after all....)

 

Sorry, I had a feeling that would happen. The AWS is the Area Weapon System, the 30mm gun. The TEDAC is the TADS Electronic Display and Control. It's the center MFD and control handles on either side of the center MFD in the front seat of the AH-64D that's being simulated in DCS. On the left handgrip is (among many other things) a hat switch called the WAS, or Weapon Action Switch. It's pronounced like "woz" and is used as both an noun and a verb. So if I say the CPG needs to WAS the AWS, I mean the pilot in the front seat should select the gun with the weapon action switch on the left handgrip beside the center MFD. There is also a sight select switch somewhere, and that would be set to TADS. Finally, the LRF/D is the laser rangefinder/designator. Each handgrip on the TEDAC has a two-trigger. The left handgrip is for firing whatever is selected with the weapon action switch, so in this case, the trigger on the left handgrip would fire the gun. The difference between the first and second detents relates to how the fire control computer handles certain inhibits (for example, for the gun, pressing the trigger to the second detent will override the selected burst limit for the gun, or at least it did on the AH-64A. I am not sure how the D-model handles the burst limit for the gun or if it even has one). The trigger on the right handgrip is for the laser rangefinder/designator. Pressing this trigger to the first detent fires 3 quick pulses from the laser to determine range to target. Pressing it to the second detent fires the laser continuously and provides range information as well as designation for laser guidance.

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, AlphaOneSix said:

The TEDAC is the TADS Electronic Display and Control. It's the center MFD and control handles on either side of the center MFD in the front seat of the AH-64D that's being simulated in DCS.

 

I do want to clarify that the TEDAC screen isn't one of the AH-64D's MPDs (Multipurpose Displays).  The TDU (TEDAC Display Unit, because why not have an acronym inside another acronym), is only for displaying TADS, FCR, or acting as a repeater of the PNVS video.

 

I only clarify this because I think we've all seen how literal some statements are taken on these forums, and then ran with.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Raptor9

[AlphaOneSix]

Thank you for the correction. I throw the terms (MFD, etc) around like candy at a parade, you know.

[arneh]

On 8/20/2021 at 10:20 PM, Raptor9 said:

The TDU (TEDAC Display Unit, because why not have an acronym inside another acronym)

And since the T in TEDAC is also an acronym, this actually is a triple level of acronyming   The full expansion would be the gibberish sounding: Target Acquisition and Designation Sights Electronic Display and Control Display Unit, i.e. TDU  

[VIIC1941]

[will-]

if u think the glass is armored, wait till u find how unarmored the hull is.  ak-47 rounds is enough to pen.  to answered ur question if its armored? yes ofc its armored; but reading a brochure is one thing, to actually fly it would be another.