DaemonPhobos

The APKWS integration is debatable since, if you came back in time to 2005 with a couple of laser guided rockets, loaded them up in the aircraft, you would be able to use them pretty much as you could do in post 2015 Apaches. This is an anachronism, however, a somewhat feasible weapon.. Stingers however, require a completely new software to be uploaded into the Weapon processor LRUs, new missile symbology to be implemented into the Display processors, the removal of the CMWS EOMS, Seeker Acquisition cueing for the ATAS system (even the AH-64A experimental tests were able to be cued by the HMD), integration of the new wingtip pylons with the MIL-STD 1553 bus, Activation of the wingtip store jettison system, new CAGE/UNCAGE functionality in the Cyclic grip, etc. This would have to be all made up since there is no available detailed information on any manuals about it. Btw, with no CMWS, you get no flares, since CMWS and CMDS are a single unit interfaced with the AGP, so good luck dodging missiles with the IR jammer alone. Now, coming back to the topic, the APKWS is indeed unrealistic, but acceptable to some degree. I fear people will become too dependant on the APKWS and forget it's not a weapon that fits the timeframe and it gets added as a "gameplay" feature. However, I find it as an acceptable addition if ED decides to include it.

Exactly, the issue is related to the expected time frame of the aircraft. To summarize everything you need to know about the M261 launcher.. "Two electrical connectors on the top of the launcher provide fuzing and firing interface. The forward connector provides the fuzing, and the aft connector provides the firing circuit." There is no connection for guidance data exchange to the Weapon processors, it is a standalone system. About the CCIP stuff, it is most likely sure it uses the same unguided rocket steering cursors as unguided rockets with no special ballistic compensations, besides, unguided launch of APKWS is not authorized due to erratic flight profile,Apache has no CCRP. however Apaches had software changes related to other systems between 2005 to 2015, like multiple MPD page changes and other stuff and new systems like satcom, mode 5 IFF, etc. it would be impossible to know if all Apaches were modified to said software for the time APKWS was integrated. ED has the final decision whether it should be implemented or not.

You are pretty much saying the same I did but in more detail. It's correct, rockets have only Fuzing and firing circuit connections with the M261 launchers. There are no specific connections to the PIUs or WP1 and 2 that would prohibit it's use, I also mentioned that a pilot told that there is no new symbology for the APKWS (like a LOAL box for example). The real problem here is that is a weapon that become operational in the aircraft a almost a decade later than our 2005-2007 version. Some people isn't going to be ok with that. I'm neither supporting or against APKWS integration.

Considering ED is modelling their LBA based on the well known publicly available document. It's quite likely TEDAC will be implemented since it's functions are described in detail.

Well, according to a real life 64D pilot's commentary I read somewhere, there is no specific symbology for APKWS engagements, nor the software has any constraint limits. Also according to flashcards you load them as 6PD or 7PD and no more than 16 per pod for maximum weight restrictions. However, there was multiple modifications to the MPD software and pages from a 2015 to even a 2007 apache. So having it implemented would inevitably be somewhat unrealistic. The same logic would apply to the current A-10C. I don't know what to think about it. APKWS should work with even IOC AH-64D block 1 in theory. The problem is it would be anachronistic.

An according to NATOPS, it can also carry CBU-55 fuel air explosives with the power of roughly 3 mk-82 bombs each. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1011989/ That said, I still see the Apache as the ultimate air- to- ground helo, most powerful cannon, 27 grs PBXN-5 per round, K/N/M hellfires, radar assisted, inertially guided Lima hellfires, multiple rocket warheads, automatic Countermeasure dispensing upon missile detection, radar jammer, etc. You will have to depend on the Kiowa with it's ATAS missiles.

Sadly, as much as I'd love to have APKWS, there has been a lot of changes from the publicly available manual up to a decade later. While not that many new systems were integrated into the aircraft, like CMWS, SATCOM, a new transponder, etc,The WPN, ASE, RPT (now MAIL), COM, TSD, VIDEO pages had some modifications, and that's just to name some of them. it would be a mix between an older software and a new weapon. I don't think ED is going to be OK with this.

The version ED intends to model have the CMWS EOMS sensors at the wingtips, therefore, mounting double ATAS racks would be impossible. I have lots of documentation showing that the US army Apache's WPs don't have air to air missiles as a valid option, ranging from 2002 up to 2011 , ATAS missiles require uncaging controls and seeker LOS cueing via helmet display in foreign Apaches. Any implementation of the system would rely purely on speculation and an unrealistic integration of the weapon system.

Early access is subjective, so there is always somebody that will complain. But I agree that I wouldn't release it on a level equivalent to the F-16C EA. That said, since there is a document that covers all of the systems in the aircraft (except some ASE stuff) available to download, it's going to be easy to calculate the level of systems implementation at release.

Yup, I love how clean the MANPRINT cockpit design actually is. That said, the lack of panels means more stuff integrated into the MPDs. The MPD displays are extremely complex and provide new things to DCS such as a terrain profile mode for the radar, 3D map for the TSD, stored image viewer, video recorder, customizable 2D maps such as SAT, city charts, elevation maps, free text messaging capability and much more.

Ermmm, nope. Let's use the FA-18C hornet HOTAS as a reference, flight stick has 8 buttons, throttle has 9 buttons. Now, the AH-64D HOCAS cyclic grip has 9 buttons, collective has 17 , left tedac handgrip has 12 and right tedac handgrip also has 12 buttons. Besides, many of these are 4-way multistate buttons. That said, the Apache has barely any console panels, restricted for emergency equipment, engine start, lighting, comms, jettison, and processor select, and some other basic stuff.

FCR is going to be implemented, there is absolutely no doubt about that, there is a lot of easily accessible information about it's performance and operation. (Scan sizes, effective range, operating procedures, etc). Perhaps it won't be at early access, though. Hellfire loft can be accomplished with LOAL HI mode, either with a remote designator or with RFHO mode for RF missiles, along with SPOT reports, etc.

I can't say for sure that it won't have it since I'm not a dev. However, it wouldn't be realistic for any Longbow apache from initial operational capability up to around 2015, date in which the system was apparently integrated. Official mid 2012 documents don't list it in their authorized loadouts.

AH-64D block 3 and AH-64E are the same aircraft. They were redesignated as AH-64E around 2012-2013. D Block 3/ early AH-64E didn't have link-16, APKWS, or external fuel tanks. I believe link 16 integration came with the AH-64E lot 4, which was delivered around 2016 as far as public information goes.

Depends on the aircraft and the specific weapon/system to be boresighted. For example, hornet and viper HMCS boresighting is something that pilots must do themselves but isn't functional in DCS yet. Most of the functions that the pilot must go through are implemented, though. you can always search for a checklist to see if a specific function is still not available. In the apache, the pilot/CPG sighting procedures are: TADS internal boresight, IHADSS boresight, TADS manual servo drift correction, TADS, FCR, NVS operational checks, Scene assisted non-uniformity check, AWS dynamic harmonization and laser pointer outfront boresight (if implemented). Those are the procedures the pilot and gunner must do for themselves by the book. Maintenance personnel take care of CBHK procedures and provide boresight corrector values for the TADS, PNVS, pylons, gun, INU1 and 2, doppler, HIADC and BPS. Pilots are provided with an aircraft logbook that allows them to check if said values are correct when starting the aircraft.

It's optional, however, it will most likely be modeled to some extent in DCS since it's just an ON /OFF system. As every ASE system in the aircraft, the IR jammer can be reprogrammed with different jam programs by an ASE/EW officer to defeat different threats, therefore, it's actual effectiveness would always be estimated.

The apache would receive a massive situational awareness boost if ED decides to model all the various support elements that the LBA is capable of exchanging information with. For start, the AFAPD protocol (longbow) can also receive/send information from JSTARS. The tactical internet allows you to receive continuous SA data, they are displayed as cyan, yellow or red color coded icons on the TSD, which you can open with your cursor in order to get more detailed information, like friend/foe, type, subtype, etc. Cooperation with artillery via JVMF or AF missions with the kiowa. All of these would be very complicated to implement since they are completely different systems from link-16/MIDS and some are dependant of AI assets. (JSTARS, artillery, etc). Regarding the FCR, it is capable of prioritizing up to 1023 targets, of which up to 256 can be viewed on the TSD page, and 16 priority targets are displayed on the FCR page for target engagement. The PSP stores priority schemes for the FCR that allows you to prioritize ground targets, airborne or moving targets depending the mission.

There is literally no chance on earth they don't model the apg-78 with the L model hellfires, there is a lot of information easily available to model said systems, much easier to find than anything like the hornet or viper weapons specifics. There are official maximum effective range numbers for the radar (8 km moving targets, 6km stationary targets), and detailed performance and functional description of both SAL and RF hellfire missiles. If they don't add them at early access, they will add them later.

Yup, I understand it would be useful. But it would be pretty much creating a fantasy page. Actual TADS control an display can only be done with the TEDAC display and grips, there are no MPD pages for TADS even for the gunner, only repeater underlays that provide video feed behind normal MPD symbology, so you wouldn't be able to press the bezel button options (AZ/EL, freeze, etc ) from an MPD. I think that an optional slew option for the pilot may be somewhat acceptable. But it wouldn't make sense, the gunner can also pilot the aircraft by himself.

Technically, the pilot can see TADS and PNVS underlays behind every MPD page in green or white color, except the FCR page and the TSD when the map function is active. That said, In real life there is no way to slew the tads from the pilot position since he has no manual tracker switch, leaving aside the link function. A manual slew from the pilot position would be unrealistic, it would be easier to switch to CPG. Any situation that requires you to pilot the aircraft around won't allow you to be accurate aiming with the TADS anyway.

5th photo is from a VUIT UAS interoperability test,(UAV datalink and control), that display wasn't integrated into production versions, neither D or E. Besides, that area is for the HDU storage compartment. 6th photo is from a block 3/ apache guardian crew trainer, you can differentiate because of the digital Secondary flight display at the left, the modified comm panel and the VU2 emergency control head located at the right console.

Yup, I'm almost sure that the 2002 number comes from the initial date of the well-known reference material used, since it's has multiple changes, it would be normal to mistake it for a 2002 version. However, like 60% of that document is from 2005, it was an interim solution until they separated block 1 and block 2 manuals. I'm quite sure it should confusing to have two completely different versions of the same display page on a single document.

From the cockpit pictures released, the cyclic looks the same as a 2005 version. Only 2 switches were modified on late block apaches cyclics. The CMDS dispense switch (same button as chaff release but different functions) And the CMDS manual program switch (forward- aft, allows selection between 4 manual chaff-flare programs) All of these changes are also related to CMWS equipment, since without those, you would be having a hard time for manually releasing flares. Also the weapon page had some changes I don't see in those pictures. But they are still early pictures, so there is no way to tell, and perhaps it's an earlier implementation of the system which had simplified controls, depending on the era they decide to model. Also, there is no way that we are getting a 2002 since MTADS (arrowhead system) was integrated around 2005.

It means Aircraft survivability product improvement, a fancy name for a redesigned engine exhaust kit. (There are some other minor differences, but it's mostly external) if I got it right, this exhaust deflects the air upwards towards the rotor blades, therefore dissipating the heat and improving the aircraft IR signature. In DCS it would be mostly cosmetic since there is no way to know the exact performance of the "sugar scoops"

Certainly there is a RF missile engagement mode using the TADS alone, Lase 3 sec, fire missile. however, if it receives targeting data from the FCR or not I'm not sure, perhaps it only uses inertial data to get close and then it uses it's own radar for terminal guidance. Also, thermobaric 114N (metal augmented charge) hellfires were delivered to the USMC around 2003, and to the us army some years later, around 2006 perhaps. I wonder if they are going to add those.