Apache chit chat and speculation

[NeedzWD40]

29 minutes ago, Rogue Trooper said:

Air defences?

Apache opened the window for jet aircraft to travel through a safe corridor during Iraq war 1 !

 

They were not attacking a strong point and they were not operating alone. Here is a good overview:

 

34 minutes ago, Rogue Trooper said:

The Apache D defensive capability is matched with its pilots situational awareness that is matched with its massive offensive capability!

 

Yet despite the individual technological capabilities and the crews, the attack at Karbala was a massive failure. It failed because they believed exactly as you believe: that the AH-64D was so advanced, so capable, and the crews so well drilled that no support would be needed from any other elements in the battle space. They were proven quite wrong.

 

16 minutes ago, Rogue Trooper said:

No.... it is simply diversifying an awesome weapons capabilities. it is a side show to its prime directive.

The Apache D is a shockingly versatile weapon.

 

Out of interest, did superb ground/control coms start in jets or did it start in attack choppers?

Did choppers start the data sharing revolution or was it jets?

 

The data capabilities of the AH-64D are one of the key reason's for its existence. Otherwise, the AH-64A was a potent attack helicopter by itself and there would be no need for the additional upgrades of the D if all it was going to do was attack. Finding targets, identifying them, and passing that data back to the ground commander is far more important than blasting a few tanks, because the firepower that a flight of AH-64s can bring to bear pales in comparison to a battery of artillery, a spread of Tomahawks, or a bombing run from B-52s.

 

Don't believe me? Then take a look at FM 1-112:

"(1) The ATKHB is an aerial maneuver unit usually employed as a battalion.
It conducts attack, reconnaissance, and security operations that complement other
maneuver forces. The ATKHB enables the supported commander to mass combat power
rapidly at the decisive time and place to affect a battle's outcome. The commander must
integrate the ATKHB into his tactical maneuver plan with other maneuver units. When
employed with other combat assets, the ATKHB can strike the enemy where and when it
is most vulnerable.
(2) An ATKHB never fights alone. Attacks are coordinated with other
maneuver, combat support, CSS, and joint forces to form a combined arms team. This
team surprises and overwhelms the enemy at the point of attack. Attacks may be
conducted out of physical contact with other friendly forces but synchronized with their
scheme of maneuver, or they may be in direct contact with friendly forces."

 

Attack helicopters, in US Army doctrine, are generally referred to as the commander's "silver bullets." They are not hatchets, axes, swords, or cannons; they are special use items that are costly to employ, and therefore must be used carefully and with due consideration. The AH-64D within this context is best used for attacking elements that affect the rest of the force; ie ADA. Conversely, the tools it can employ in the execution of that task can range from naval gunfire direction, to fixed wing DEAD elements, to ground forces in proximity, to its own weapons. Opening the door to an A-10 dropping a few CBU-97s by destroying ADA elements in an armored brigade is a much more efficient move than wasting 16 HELLFIREs that could be better employed on critical targets in the battlespace. The attack element only comes in when those assets are otherwise engaged or unavailable.

 

Communication within attack helicopters, superb or not, was primarily a result of their association with the ground commander (for the US Army). Most of this was driven by scout helicopters which were attached to artillery for spotting. Most of the communication advances were the result of limitations found after ODS (again, a key driver for the AH-64D program).

 

Jets were the first to employ data links and data sharing. Attack helicopters began as CAS elements for ground commanders, primarily due to issues with endurance and availability of fixed wing assets. The further adoption of the anti-tank mission came as a result of the tank disparity between the Warsaw Pact and NATO.

[Rogue Trooper]

36 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

 

They were not attacking a strong point and they were not operating alone. Here is a good overview:

 

 

Yet despite the individual technological capabilities and the crews, the attack at Karbala was a massive failure. It failed because they believed exactly as you believe: that the AH-64D was so advanced, so capable, and the crews so well drilled that no support would be needed from any other elements in the battle space. They were proven quite wrong.

 

 

The data capabilities of the AH-64D are one of the key reason's for its existence. Otherwise, the AH-64A was a potent attack helicopter by itself and there would be no need for the additional upgrades of the D if all it was going to do was attack. Finding targets, identifying them, and passing that data back to the ground commander is far more important than blasting a few tanks, because the firepower that a flight of AH-64s can bring to bear pales in comparison to a battery of artillery, a spread of Tomahawks, or a bombing run from B-52s.

 

Don't believe me? Then take a look at FM 1-112:

"(1) The ATKHB is an aerial maneuver unit usually employed as a battalion.
It conducts attack, reconnaissance, and security operations that complement other
maneuver forces. The ATKHB enables the supported commander to mass combat power
rapidly at the decisive time and place to affect a battle's outcome. The commander must
integrate the ATKHB into his tactical maneuver plan with other maneuver units. When
employed with other combat assets, the ATKHB can strike the enemy where and when it
is most vulnerable.
(2) An ATKHB never fights alone. Attacks are coordinated with other
maneuver, combat support, CSS, and joint forces to form a combined arms team. This
team surprises and overwhelms the enemy at the point of attack. Attacks may be
conducted out of physical contact with other friendly forces but synchronized with their
scheme of maneuver, or they may be in direct contact with friendly forces."

 

Attack helicopters, in US Army doctrine, are generally referred to as the commander's "silver bullets." They are not hatchets, axes, swords, or cannons; they are special use items that are costly to employ, and therefore must be used carefully and with due consideration. The AH-64D within this context is best used for attacking elements that affect the rest of the force; ie ADA. Conversely, the tools it can employ in the execution of that task can range from naval gunfire direction, to fixed wing DEAD elements, to ground forces in proximity, to its own weapons. Opening the door to an A-10 dropping a few CBU-97s by destroying ADA elements in an armored brigade is a much more efficient move than wasting 16 HELLFIREs that could be better employed on critical targets in the battlespace. The attack element only comes in when those assets are otherwise engaged or unavailable.

 

Communication within attack helicopters, superb or not, was primarily a result of their association with the ground commander (for the US Army). Most of this was driven by scout helicopters which were attached to artillery for spotting. Most of the communication advances were the result of limitations found after ODS (again, a key driver for the AH-64D program).

 

Jets were the first to employ data links and data sharing. Attack helicopters began as CAS elements for ground commanders, primarily due to issues with endurance and availability of fixed wing assets. The further adoption of the anti-tank mission came as a result of the tank disparity between the Warsaw Pact and NATO.

 

Regarding the Apache D..... there is a point in your response?

What was the first data communication airframe in the US of A inventory? 

 

How it was then is not how it is now.

how it is now is not how it is in the future.

 

Your answer gives the impression that you know what you are talking about.

But when it comes to Attack helicopters, I am not so sure that you know anything at all.

But to be honest with you, I do not think the US military knows what to do with them...... we have no such problems in Europe.

 

Edited August 30, 2021 by Rogue Trooper

[NeedzWD40]

27 minutes ago, Rogue Trooper said:

Regarding the Apache D..... there is a point in your response?

What was the first data communication airframe in the US of A inventory? 

 

The point is that the D has a massive apparatus that is for reconnaissance, identification, data sharing, and communication. These upgrades are not important if the mission is pure CAS/attack -- they are even detrimental to that mission due to the extra weight and power demands added. They do, however, make the AH-64D a far better team player and allow it to direct friendly assets as required.

 

I am unsure of what you mean by "data communication" but I presume you intend aircraft intended for data sharing and recon; the OH-58D would be the first purpose built example. Previous iterations were modifications of the UH-1, OH-58A/C, and OH-6 series aircraft, none having the same level of capability.

  

27 minutes ago, Rogue Trooper said:

Your answer gives the impression that you know what you are talking about.

But when it comes to Attack helicopters, I am not so sure that you know anything at all.

But to be honest with you, I do not think the US military knows what to do with them...... we have no such problems in Europe.

 

You believe what you want to believe, slick. I will allow others to judge the information I've shared on the subject to be judged on their merits rather than my own personal or professional experience.

 

The US military expects each part of the team to contribute to mission success. Attack helicopters are but one part of the whole and expected to be either part of the tip or part of the shaft as required. A smaller military, relying on attack helicopters alone, won't have the same luxuries as a larger combined army will. So yes, I would expect the variety of European militaries to approach attack helicopters differently -- they have to.

Edited August 30, 2021 by NeedzWD40

[Rogue Trooper]

Sorry got a warning from ED forums.

Profanity and what not.

My apologies if I have insulted anyone.

I wish you all a good night. 

[Oceandar]

Seing picture of apache Hotas control and Mfd buttons really intimidating. My TM Warthog and TM Cougar Mfd seem not enough for it. What do you guys have in mind?

[Lurker]

So....with regards to it's great comm and target sharing capability, do you guys think that this will be limited only to other Apaches within DCS World (on the server\mission) or is it going to be more integrated somehow into DCS World itself. I think I read somewhere that the Apache we will be getting will only be able to share it's targets with other Apaches. 

 

So what happens when you are buddy lasing for fast movers. Do you guys think that this will be integrated and working correctly within DCS world? 

[Kilo]

Not sure about the datalink side of things, but I'm pretty sure you will be able to buddy lase, as I don't think you'll have anything different from the 4-digit code laser. Don't know about today, but a while ago you could buddy lase even with the Su-25T, as the guy firing has the weapon code set as 1113, so I don't think we'll have any trouble with the Apache

Edited August 31, 2021 by Kilo

[NeedzWD40]

14 hours ago, Lurker said:

So....with regards to it's great comm and target sharing capability, do you guys think that this will be limited only to other Apaches within DCS World (on the server\mission) or is it going to be more integrated somehow into DCS World itself. I think I read somewhere that the Apache we will be getting will only be able to share it's targets with other Apaches. 

 

So what happens when you are buddy lasing for fast movers. Do you guys think that this will be integrated and working correctly within DCS world? 

 

That will hinge on how far they go with data links in the future. Intermediaries like the J-STARS are supposed to link the separate, disparate data link systems out there, but since the most recent E models are using Link 16 it's hard to say if that's still going to be a thing. The IDM is supposed to allow data linking with all units using an IDM (the F-16C has this option on the HSD now but AFAIK it's not planned to be enabled). An ideal compromise would be similar to the F-14 now, where E-2/3s can aggregate data when present.

 

The LD/RF is standard kit and should work with most western laser guided weaponry. Likewise, SAL HELLFIRE will work with appropriate coded lasers regardless of source. So you'll be able to have an A-10C/F-16C/F-18C/F-14/etc. lase while the AH-64 launches or vice versa. You can also do a ripple engagement and launch one missile on one code and then launch another on your own code for a rapid attack.

[S. Low]

So… like I was saying… lazing for fast movers is going to be a hoot.