DaemonPhobos

I don't have the block 2 manual at hand, it's too large for my phone, but the aerial rocket system and a later manual talk about the Fixed mode. Apparently it is selected with WPN RKT R2 button, between MODE NORM and FIXED. It is very poorly explained in the TM, but the ARS SH says pylons containing available rockets of the selected type are positioned to +3.48 degrees, and a unique CCIP constraint symbol is presented. The CCIP symbol looks like the Rocket steering cursor with a circle in the middle representing the CCIP rockets at target. I used to confuse the Fixed mode with the independent mode. I will check the 2005 Blk 2 manual to see if there is info about it too. --Edit: It's right, the 2005 TM doesn't talk about it, I believe it's a later addition to both block 2 and block 3 aircraft. The first mention I get is from April 2009. Perhaps it was available earlier, no idea. ED appears to be modelling a rather late 2000s WPN page.

It is correct as it is IRL. That's the cooperative rocket mode. The pylons can be elevated or depressed in that mode. They can also be fired in fixed mode with a circle centered in the middle of the rocket steering cursor.

Both stations have something the other cannot do. In the case of the CPG station, it does not have engine start controls, and the CMWS control panel, however, it has the TEDAC. The pilot cannot control TADS as a sight. While the gunner can slave the TADS to pilot acquisition sources, it is still under CPG control. FCR can only provide target data handover for RF hellfires, SAL type hellfires require lasing from the TADS LRFD. So you want to be on the pilot station for most of the startup, then switch to the CPG cockpit for combat related stuff.

The interesting part is about mixed loadouts. You can have either 1200/1150 rounds of M789 30mm (or ADEN/DEFA, theoretically), or a mixed fuel tank/ammo container with 242+58 rounds plus 100 gal of fuel. The aerial rocket system has 5 different rocket inventory zones fuze settings, most likely we are going to be having the M151 HE, M229 HE, M261 multipurpose submunition, M255 Flechette, smoke and illumination rockets, so you can mix them. m299 hellfire launchers can accept different types of hellfire on the same station. Probable variants will be AGM-114K, AGM-114L RF, AGM-114A,AGM-114C,F. AGM-114M blast frag, and AGM-114N thermobaric metal augmented charge. Regarding the 16x hellfire loadout, the loadout is perfectly possible, but your hover and general performance will be limited, more with only 701C engines. The aircraft itself has trouble when fully loaded, it's not just a function of the specific 16 missile loadout. For example, a fully loaded M261 launcher with x19 M151 weights 613 lbs, while a M299 launcher with x4 HF K model weights around 673 lbs. Keep in mind that the M151 rockets are the lightest, you can make a rocket pod heavier than a hellfire launcher by adding different types of rockets, however, they appear to be less draggy. The only downside of the apache is not having air to air weapons, aside from that, it has impressive ground attack capabilities.

First, having to balance modules would be good if ED wanted to make a competitive game. This is a simulator, it's marketed as one, Digital combat simulator. It's meant to simulate an aircraft as close as possible, the aircraft they choose Is not relevant, because, in real life, there is no such thing as balance. AH-64D is probably the aircraft with most documentation available of all modules ED has ever done, first, there is the operator manual, covering normal procedures, engine, cruise performance, weight and limitations, avionics, communications, weapon systems, countermeasures and navigation. There are also multiple documents and flashcards complementary to that manual that give additional info on helicopter gunnery, aircrew interaction, etc. There are performance charts for hellfires, including trajectories and time of flight, information on performance for rockets, gun. Official Info about max on paper effective ranges of the longbow FCR and scan sizes. Besides, there are lots of SMEs on the apache community in contact with ED to help them in non classified aspects of the aircraft. As long as ED is capable to stick to the published info, there shouldn't be a reason to worry. I would like an A model Apache too, but the Delta's are the ones everyone has hype for.

If you mean the panel above the keyboard unit, sometimes they mount an emergency control head for ARC-231 radios there, Echo apaches have a digital secondary flight display instead. These are not going to be implemented. Also, while the cockpit appears to be a single canopy, there is a ballistic shield above the Pilots instrument panel, separating both crewstations.

Yup, TEDAC display unit is confirmed for EDs apache, exactly the same you see here.

I'm not against it but.. The problem is that it wouldn't add a whole lot of different capabilities to be worth it. First, you need engine performance data for the new engines, hover charts, cruise charts, etc. There is not enough info to properly model the HIDAS system. I would really like the CRV7 rockets. The US version is technically capable and has fuse selections for the CRVs, it's just that they don't use/have them. The arrowhead system is mostly the MTADS/MPNVS, which our aircraft is going to get. I believe the integrated ammunition and fuel unit is something similar to the robbie tanks (100 gal Internal auxiliary fuel system that also has 242 rounds on the box, plus some extra 58 rounds on the AHS), our apache is going to get those too. Regarding the radios, getting the info on those is also going to be difficult, we already have the info for US blk 2. I don't know if it's worth the effort.

But when the attitude hold mode is off its only limited to below 40 knots to be active, right?

To keep it simple, heading hold is automatically engaged when you press the Force trim release switch to left position (attitude hold) mode and these conditions are given; Pedals displaced less than 0.10 inches from trim position. Yaw rate is less than 3°/second. Roll cyclic displaced less than 0.25 inches from trim position. Aircraft roll is <± 3° from level. The aircraft automatically get into the heading hold if these values are met. The flight controls breakout values (when the aircraft breaks from heading hold mode) are. Pitch and Roll cyclic displacement less than 0.25 inches Collective displacement less than 0.50 in. Pedal displacement depends on the Attitude Hold submode as follows: Position hold less than 0.10 in. Velocity hold less than 0.20 in. Attitude hold less than 0.30 in Not copy pasted, manually wrote all that and it was a pain.

I would dare to say that it's heavily assisted by the computer, and actually, you can go "Fly-by-wire" in a way, but it's for emergency purposes. Let me explain, during normal operations, flight control inputs are transferred through the ARDD (automatic roller detent decoupler) to the servoactuators, this is a mechanical system. However LVDTs, or lineal variable differential transducers, provide crew station controls information to the Flight computer, this information is used to provide multiple Stability and control augmentation functions. (Please remember this aircraft has position, attitude, heading, velocity and altitude hold modes.). When the BUCS mode(emergency flight controls mode) gets engaged due to mechanical jamming or severance between the ARDD and the servoactuators, the ARDD will automatically decouple (when jammed, direct transition to BUCS when severed), sending a signal to the Flight computer to control the servoactuators by itself, effectively making it a sort of fly-by-wire system. So, to keep it short, BUCS is an emergency fly-by-wire system. Regarding the datalink stuff, most of the aircraft in DCS has link-16 or SADL, which do not appear to be compatible with either Longbow protocol, Tactical internet, or ATHS- TACFIRE. That does not mean this aircraft doesn't have one impressive datalink suite.

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 display, there is no reason to be worried about it. Not even the military sims are 100% accurate avionics wise.

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 on Delta apaches. Perhaps the most important feature of the block 3 is omitted in that article, which is the "magical drone stuff".

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.

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.

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 running away from the vehicle after the explosion, a simplified damage model would be ok for this weapon.

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.

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.

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 switch on the cyclic grip (current one is used a target store switch). Probably new WP, SP and DP software that adds: Display simbology for Seeker FOV, seeker lock, superelevation on the ihadss symbology for missile icons, missile BIT tests and weapon selection on the MPDs. New boresight page to input Roll, Az, El corrector values for the new pylons.. A connection between the stinger pylons and the CIU in order to provide missile audio tones. An US army apache does not have most of that. Also, there are no official numbers on FIM-92 stinger performance, maximum and minimum engagement ranges are contained in a classified supplement on their ground based MANPADS variant. You can use the Kiowa manual in order to get a reference of what a real ATAS integration actually is in other aircraft... To simplify things up.. Forget about the stingers. They are laughable to any fighter jet you try to engage. But you can engage helicopters with SAL hellfires just as well.

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 that isn't applicable to the DCS environment like have quick and SINCGARS radio mode, encrypted secure comms, in depth jamming simulation, ECS systems, etc.. But please, don't jump straight to conclusions, we dont know pretty much anything about EDs apache yet. Back to the stinger topic. There is no way to integrate stingers into this module without making it an unrealistic fantasy aircraft. Because of: A) unrealistic, completely out of context weapon system that requires hardware and software modifications to implement. AH-64E V6s that, according to some unreliable reports, had the system integrated, don't use them on the wingtips, but on some special adapter on the pylons themselves, since, as we already know, 2 of the 5 CMWS EOMS are installed at wingtip panels. 2) impossibility of getting foreign Apache's manuals. You won't be able to guess the symbology and weapon release procedures for this, I can guarantee, they are not plug and play.

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.

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 standard stinger missile audio tones or something else? Do the missile icons have special BITs like on the Kiowa? How does one superelevate the missiles? Symbology for superelevation? .. You see, it's not just "adding the stingers", you need documentation to make them even remotely realistic. Unless someone has the info (in which case, if you read this, please PM me), there is no way to implement them in a realistic way.

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.

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.

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 hellfires, SAL double tandem warhead K hellfire, blast frag M hellfire, thermobaric MAC N hellfire, Multipurpose submunition rockets, flechette rockets, WP, illumination, smoke, M229 rockets with 2.2kg of explosive instead of 1 kg of the M151, and a gun with 2 minutes worth of ammunition (not counting cool down time between firing bursts).