DaemonPhobos

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.

Actually, the Apache doesn't use the LAU series pods like fixed wing aircraft already in DCS, it has the M-140 aerial rocket system/ rocket management subsystem consisting of the M261 pods and the Pylon interface units, which provide different rocket inventory zones, inflight and LMP loaded fuze settings for each zone, quantity fired per trigger pull, penetration settings, and number of rockets available displayed instead of just a single Ripple/low rate of fire mode on the LAUs. They don't have to redesign it, they are making a completely new system. In regards of being flown in missions later than 2000-2010s, that is just complete nonsense. DCS map dates are intended to be sort of a briefing data in order to give you some context for the mission, it's completely unrelated to the systems in any aircraft. A simple solution is not to give dates for the missions themselves and just stick to the authorized stuff in every aircraft. Every single aircraft cannot be modeled on the same era because of the impossibility of getting said info. You may be getting a 2007 F-16C 34-1 manual, a 2005 FA-18C NATOPS and tactical manual, a 1995 F-14B natops, a 2001 kiowa -10 etc.. That is a technical limitation of the available data. Now thinking that the mission date should be something to consider when building the avionics of a module is ridiculous. By 2015 it's most likely that all aircraft in DCS had lots of modifications we don't even know about or have been taken out of service in some cases. So, let it be as it is, a 2009 apache, a 2007 viper, a 2005 hornet, etc etc with their own limitations.

Personally, I totally support ED decision on this subject. While it's confirmed that any aircraft with appropriate pods could carry the rockets, they decided to restrict the aircraft to it's real life authorized loadouts, because they are intending to model a US army 64D LBA blk 2 from that specific date.

First, an early 2002 to 2005 version apache should be getting an early test APKWS (Not APKWS II) which, apparently, was a failed test program. Second, software for every programmable bus controller and other LRUs, (SP,WP,DP,HIADC,FMC,EGI,TCB,LMP, etc) are loaded quite often into the aircraft, in fact, there is a whole MPD page you have to check in order to verify the correct software are loaded into the aircraft and don't mismatch. This isn't like a PC where you can have windows XP when there is windows 10 available. Also, not updating software would create a massive logistics issue, where some aircraft need one manual different from the others. It may not be an instantaneous update, but it won't take 5 years for sure. That's why, it's probable, no aircraft with 2009 software ever loaded an APKWS

What raptor said is correct, and it's why I see APKWS integration as unrealistic. By the time that weapon became operational, it's probable all Apaches had the new software, making possible the use of, for example, the AGM-114FA , 114L5, and the 114R. Perhaps different radios, like the ARC-231, probably the APX-123 transponder instead of the 118, fuzed mode for the PNVS, they probably removed the obsolete ATHS, and other numerous upgrades that our aircraft won't be having, besides the obvious fact that some MPD pages are different. It's not like a 2009 Apache stays like that forever, software changes constantly. and of course, the APKWS wasn't just directly integrated on real Life Apaches instantly, it had to undergo testing before being considered as an authorized load for the aircraft. As much as I like the APKWS, it's impossible not to admit that it would be historically inaccurate, anachronistic or unrealistic in some way.

The problem is that the CMWS doesn't appear to be just the panel, it eventually received MPD integration and specific ASE icons at least in 2011. However I don't know if this integration was already ready in 2009. That said, being a CMWS equipped aircraft while using an ORT would be like... Technically possible but a weird choice of an aircraft to model.

Yup, I was checking some documents, first mention I see for the CMWS (visible panel on right side of ED released pictures) being installed comes from a study guide from 2009. However I don't find it in a systems handout from 2008. If we use that number (after mid-2008 to 2010), TEDAC implementation is pretty much 99% sure.

IIRC igla had around 5 km max range when fired in the correct mode on the ground version. Interestingly, the APKWS has a 5 km max launch envelope with 3 to 4 being the optimum engagement range (for ground targets, not helos, however, that F-16 test shooting down drones with it...) Of course an air to ground rocket may not be as effective and maneuverable as a dedicated surface to air missile. However they are laser guided, the igla is IR guided, the Apache has a lot of flares. And believe me, the FCR is always going to acquire you before you can get to visually ID the 64D. Chances are, depending on their maneuverability, the BS may get owned with or without iglas.

If I had to take a guess, it is because it's a numerous, accurate, powerful weapon that makes the rockets actually effective against point targets at longer ranges. See a lightly armored vehicle, no need for hellfires, just send a SAL guided AGR, you can clear 16 enemy vehicles per pod loaded, versus 4 for the hellfires. Of course, it's a massive game changer, tactics would be developed for them, both defensive and offensive, other helos would be most likely completely overwhelmed by them like a nest of angry bees spamming at them. 12 vikhr missiles? Iglas? Good, Get blown into non-existence by a 64 guided rocket salvo, acquired by a 360 degree FCR radar with with 8 km range, and lased by a 36x zoom FOV FLIR sensor. Of course some people is going to like that.. But... The date where this weapon was introduced, some MPD pages were pretty much the same as an early AH-64E, not a 2009 apache anymore. Some new systems were added, some were removed. i know for sure that the ASE page is different, the RPT page is completely different, the CMWS may or may not have HFI, the WPN page is different, the TSD page too, the COM most likely too. Is this still a realistic simulation of an aircraft? I have an opinion, and I don't like mixing new with old, but you have to take yours based on what you read here. Notes: a 2002 Apache (or anything with an appropriate rocket pod) can carry a 2015 APKWS, no software changes required, provided they had existed in the same era. A saw a real pilot telling that there are no software changes related to Rocket engagements for the APKWS, so I guess, same rocket steering cursor, same CCIP reticle, same WPN icons. The real debate here comes if it should be integrated in regards to historical accuracy or the theoretical capability of the older aircraft.

On the other hand, I would prefer APKWS over any other type of rocket, because I like newer systems than older ones, it's not like I'm shooting down on the APKWS because I hate the weapon, I like overpowered stuff. If i guided myself for what I want, this would be DCS: AH-64E by eagle dynamics, complete with APKWS and all the bells and whistles. However, I do not like having aircraft that take parts from different eras, I would avoid it as much as possible, sometimes the information from an era is lacking and you have to improvise with different documents, and I understand that, it's an all or nothing situation. However, purposefully implementing something on it that didn't exist back when the aircraft was flying does not seem to be a serious simulation of the aircraft. This is even worse than the LAU-88 and triple mavs on the viper, since atleast the LAU existed from before, and we have no info if the 34-1 list it as an available store, so we cannot tell if it's possible or not. You would be flying an aircraft with 2009 systems using a 2015 weapon, there is no change in that. Unless ED manages to bring the aircraft to a later version.

However, you also made me realize something. I was checking about the earliest date I see the CMWS being mentioned, it comes from the miller study guide from 2009... Data management systems maintenance student handouts from may 2008 don't mention it all, and that is strange considering It makes mention of every single Line replaceable unit in the aircraft. It's quite possible that your figure for 2009 is actually correct. I'm actually quite intrigued now, I could almost swear I saw an article about Apaches deploying with ASPI around 2008. Time will tell.

Also, we don't have the weight and moment/100 data for the APKWS that would normally be loaded into the PERF WT page. That would come really handy too if we want a very detailed simulation assuming ED decides to model it. However, you are right that I went too far comparing the hellfire with the APKWS, there are nothing alike, the point was more to show that it would become a standard weapon in the aircraft that would be anachronistic.

Yup You are right about that But even the AH-64E/D block 3 from August 31 2012 wasn't cleared for APKWS use, check page 456 on authorized rockets. For example, LBHMMS and sighting systems student handouts show MPD pages similar to early AH-64Es, but they are Lot 11 64D aircraft, the terrain profiling modes in FCR have yellow and red color, the RPT page has changed in name to the MAIL page, etc. For example, the WPN page shown in EDs pictures doesn't show the Flare counters above the Chaff status window. It is still uncertain which version they decided to model. Some later delta Apaches have an extra center pedestal panel for the Laser pointer, BFT and Strobe light too which ours doesn't have. We can't also see the Flare and manual program dispense switches in the cyclic. There is no way to tell for sure. 2005 to 2008 is a good conservative number as of now, most likely towards 2008, but it would require ASPI too. But it's also true that D Apaches had notable software modifications around 2011 according to multiple documents. I would be OK with APKWS if it atleast existed by the time the aircraft was flying, like 2012 or something like that, not necessarily 2015, but something credible.

I wouldn't be able to tell for sure as I don't have data on the real KA-50, balance is not a friend for a simulation, but since the KA-50 by itself is kind of an experimental aircraft, the limits for realism are wider, Iglas are an acceptable weapon if they are based on real documentation, that said, they have 5 km range at most depending on the version, and they may take a pylon. Apaches with FCR Air targeting mode, FLIR, DTV, laser warning system, CMWS and direct trayectory hellfires may be still too powerful for an enemy.

I believe everything we can tell regarding to the BS3 is pure speculation, the are no flight, weapons or maintenance manuals available online for it, it could be a 100% accurate model to a specific version of it, or absolute guesswork.

I can understand the reasoning of why you want the inclusion of APKWS into the module, however, I will never, absolutely never agree that it will be a realistic feature to be implemented, I can keep arguing for an eternity, because I find this quite entertaining, or at least until a mod decides to close the thread for how ridiculous it has become. Logical fallacies, inaccuracies are ok, but at least let's try to avoid personal confrontation and ad hominem. First, minor details, the M151 warhead is a HE warhead, minimal penetration, LAW equivalent warhead would be the obscure M247 HEAT warhead, not authorized for AH-64D, but apparently authorized for AH-1F at least in 2001, this one has similar capabilities to a M72 LAW warhead on a hydra rocket motor. As I said before, a 2005 apache longbow still has the same authorized stores in 2015, it has to go separation tests and airworthiness qualifications in order to be an approved loadout for the aircraft, therefore, falling into the realm of fantasy. Technically possible, yes. Realistic, absolutely not. Besides, are you going to be ok remembering that the APKWS came when Apaches had TACSAT/DAMA, VUIT, mode 5 iff, different MPD pages and all of those things we aren't getting? That we are just getting a fictional glimpse of an aircraft in the future?

A 2005 AH-64D in 2015 still has the same manual, with the same authorized stores, Loading APKWS is possible by hardware and software, but not authorized, therefore, as valid as loading a toilet in the PIUs

The ultimate argument I have for this. It isn't a realistic loadout because it wasn't an authorized weapon system for that era. Weapons must go through airworthiness qualifications first before they get approved for aircraft use. Therefore, using APKWS on a real AH-64D circa 2005 on real combat situations would have gotten a ground crew personnel discharged from service under normal circumstances.

You could also mount a brick to the pylons, a toilet, a B-54 nuclear bomb with the mechanical PAL unlocked, the fact that you can do it does not mean that is something serious to implement. There has to be a logical limit of what they should implement, and that is regulated by historical accuracy within some limits. It's quite likely that 16 RF hellfire missiles were never loaded into combat due to budget limits, however, it would be within a reasonable threshold of realism, it was a weapon that existed in that era, it is a valid loadout, and it's technically possible. However, you are suggesting to implement a weapon that was integrated into the aircraft 6 years ago, to an aircraft over 16 years old. It's futile to try to be accurate when you do that.

No, the APKWS does not need software, nor apparently has, according to what a pilot told. There are only two connectors for fuzing and firing on M261 launchers, that's all the communication with the rockets. You set the laser seeker code on the rockets themselves and you cannot mix them with standard 6PD rockets as expected. That said, it's not a matter of software, but of realism. If it was a simple smoke rocket, a radio, etc, It would be acceptable, But it's a day or night difference, based on speculation and anachronism.

This is about the reputation of DCS being a study simulator with gaming elements and not just a videogame with systems simulation. Their goal is to model an AH-64D block 2, undisclosed lot and software, around 2005 to 2008, which may change if they get more info. It's quite likely that every single aircraft in the fleet already had new software by 2015, date in which the APKWS was integrated. Student handouts from 2009 onwards and manuals from 2012 already show some differences in the MPD displays and software. That would definitely be a frankenstein monster, since it's a weapon that makes a huge difference in gameplay and tactics. Besides, I don't even know why you are so interested in this weapon system, are you aware that this aircraft is already the most capable air to ground platform by that era?

The 2002 number for the aircraft date comes, most likely, from an early misunderstanding from the ED team, that the available manual is from 2002 just because it says so in the title, the reality is, if you check 5 pages below, it is TM blah blah-251-10 with change 5 from 2005, date in which the MTADS was delivered to the US army, it's such an early integration of the MTADS that it had only 4 targets capability for the MTT instead of 6 like the 2009 ones. The late CMWS integration comes from late info that the team might have gotten hands onto after their initial announcement, since it's a 2007 system aprox. As of now, there is nothing to prove that the aircraft might have any historical inaccuracies, there are just a couple of pictures available. Regarding the APKWS, it's just not a minor weapon that makes absolutely no difference if integrated or not, it's something that will be the most commonly used weapon in the aircraft, due to quantity, accuracy and lethality. All of those will be based on a weapon that didn't even exist at all when this aircraft was flying, making this the "ED: AH-64D apache with magic time travelling APKWS rockets that spam every server". Using that logic we can also add drone interoperability, fuzed mode for the PNVS, LINK-16, just because the aircraft can do it in 2021.

The real problem I see when integrating APKWS is having a 2015's weapon on a 2005 aircraft. It's true, the aircraft could have carried it, could... but it didn't, because APKWS did not exist at that time, in fact back in 2005 the program switched from general dynamics to BAE APKWS II because it performed poorly on testing according to some citations. People seem to ignore that Apaches DID receive multiple software changes from 2005 to 2015, there are MPD pages that were renamed or added, button locations modified or removed, etc. Considering that APKWS is going to be pretty much the primary rocket load for every single DCS player, (some are not even going to carry hellfires at all, just x4 m261 with 16 AGRs each) of course it will be a rocket spam based on an anachronism, completely killing any sort of realism the module may have.

Again, aircraft with appropriate rocket pods can fire the APKWS, regardless of era (most aircraft in DCS should be getting APKWS using that logic, viper, hornet, harrier, F14, A-4E, etc.) I don't think DCS mission and map dates are something that could be seriously related to the systems in an aircraft, it's a ridiculous comparison, it's like saying that a real USAF simulator shouldn't have the latest systems in the aircraft integrated because the satellite imagery the map was based on was taken 7 years ago, something completely laughable. Up until now, there is no hint of any sort of frankenstein monster in DCS apache released pictures. If they get their info right, it would be perfectly acceptable as a 2005 to 2007 apache, with the exception of some details on the WPN page that may not be correct. (Too early to tell)

Totally not against that, I would like a JGSDF AH-64DJP with the camo scheme and complete ATAS integration even more than a AH-64E V4. However, getting info for foreign Apaches is extremely difficult, somebody has to leak the documents first, and not counting the fact that they are restricted docs that might get somebody in trouble. One cannot just mix a US army LBA with any other version, some may have AMASE integration, unknown jammer pods, different radios and cryptos, different ASE suite, it's impossible to know without their respective TMs. If Air to Air capability is mandatory, I would wish for a W or Z cobra, which have sidewinder integration and publicly available manuals already. Otherwise, just accept the Apache and try to bring enemies down with the AWS, some M255 flechettes, or a direct trajectory SAL hellfire, anyway, the stingers have only less than 8km range under ideal circumstances, fighters will kill you even if you have them and current helos are no match for the Apache.