Raptor9

They are implemented, I've seen them in Open Beta myself. But they will only show on the TSD, and only if the TSD is set to ATK phase. If you see the total target count in the top right corner of the FCR page indicating a number greater than 16, there will be low priority targets on the TSD. But again, they will only be shown if set to ATK phase and if you have the Show option enabled.

Only Priority Schemes A, B, and C will be implemented. Additional priority scheme selections were added for future "growth options", but were not implemented in the real AH-64D. Further, the Mission button below the Priority scheme option will not be modeled either since that button was only relevant to those "growth" priority schemes, which rendered the Mission button non-functional anyway. As such, the tag that was added to the title of this thread was in response to the original questions and remains "not realistic", since only Priority Schemes A, B, and C in their current form are available.

@FalcoGer, the posts immediately preceding mine were referencing publicly-available documents describing real-world applications of SEAD with regard to Army Aviation operations. This is what I was referring to as a means of separating the concepts of SEAD as a doctrinal mission set versus SEAD as a supporting task during a mission. It was not in regards to DCS gameplay. There is no "doctrine" in DCS, just scenarios that are designed and programmed by mission makers. Mission makers can do whatever they want, and players can play however they want, regardless of what real-life doctrine publications state. But that was not what the immediate discussion leading up to my comment was about. The discussion was about what constitutes a realistic employment of the AH-64D as outlined in publicly-available documents.

@FalcoGer, you are cherry-picking individual statements out of context of the entire post; not to mention treating the "electronic attack" slang term of "bombarding it with electrons" as a literal statement. You can claim whatever you want, but you missed the overarching point I was explaining; which is from the perspective of spending decades doing the job in real-life, not reading about it on the internet. Frankly, I no longer have any inclination to provide such insights on the forums anymore. I've said what I feel was helpful to clarify the debate. Anyone is free to believe me or not believe me; that is their prerogative. Good day.

I believe the distinction that many are getting hung up on is the difference between "SEAD" as a dedicated mission within the overarching strategic objectives, versus "SEAD" that is integrated as a supporting task of another objective altogether. Degrading air defenses could be as fancy as bombarding it with electrons from EA-6B Prowler or EA-18 Growler aircraft, or it could be as simple as a commando cutting the power grid to the regional air defense command center or a bomb physically blowing up a radar emplacement. But there is a significant difference between attacking air defense systems to simply remove them from the battlespace compared to attacking them as a means to survive long enough to achieve your mission. AH-64's are not assigned SEAD as a mission unto itself, in that they don't go out hunting for air defenses to sanitize the battlespace. That is delegated to platforms that are actually trained and equipped to perform that mission set, such as F-16's. However, deliberately targeting air defense units at the outset of any engagement is simply a good strategy to ensure that your helicopters survive long enough to achieve the actual objective. This is no different than targeting command and control vehicles before attacking other vehicles around them, or a sniper targeting an officer before engaging the soldiers under their command; it is simply performing proper prioritization of targets as a means to achieve a mission objective. Having said that, there may be specific aircrews designated within the flight that are tasked with attacking air defense units when such units are encountered; but again, that does not mean they are specifically performing a SEAD mission, it just means they are allocated the task to engage air defense units before hand, so no one is asking "Who's gonna attack this SA-8 that is locked on to us?" in the middle of their RWR going haywire. That is just delegation of duties amongst flight members such as who is performing primary navigation, who in the flight is designated to talk to the ground forces in the area, etc. The Task Force Normandy example is an outlier and was a surgical strike conducted by a joint helicopter force against strategic targets following months of planning, training, and rehearsals. It just so happened that this strategic target was a pair of radar sites that would blind the Iraqi reaction time long enough to allow coalition aircraft to penetrate far enough into enemy airspace before a sufficient counterattack could be launched. It was a strike against the enemy's command and control capabilities and early warning infrastructure. At the end of the day, all of this is splitting hairs in an attempt to debate the meaning of "SEAD" as a doctrinal mission set, compared to an implied task that is performed in a tactical situation. But if one is debating whether the AH-64D is an ideal platform for deliberately attacking air defenses, then the answer is no. The AH-64D was designed to destroy armored vehicles from standoff range beyond the weapons employed by tanks, IFV's, and APC's. Mobile air defense units such as the ZSU-23-4, SA-8, SA-15, or 2S6 Tunguska were specifically designed to destroy helicopters and low-flying attack aircraft. Going toe-to-toe with a weapon system that is purpose-built to kill you is silly, much like sending an A-10 or AH-1 with Sidewinder missiles to hunt down MiG-29's. Defending oneself is one thing, to include deliberately planning to defend oneself before even climbing into the cockpit; but that is a far cry from being equipped, trained, and deliberately tasked to go after such units.

Page 147 of the DCS AH-64D Early Access Guide. No low-priority FCR targets were present that would have been shown/hidden with this option.

Posts merged.

Hello @Donglr 1) There is none in the Pilot cockpit. However the CPG may use the MAN TRK controller to slew the FCR scan area left and right. 2) Please see this comment: 3) Each time the arrow buttons are used to slew the FCR scan area, the scan area moves an entire "scan width". So if you have the FCR set to a full 90 degree scan zone in Wide, it will slew 90 left or right. If you want to move it partially to the left using the arrow buttons, you can either slave the FCR to your helmet (PHS in the Pilot cockpit), or you can set the scan size to Zoom (Z), press the arrow buttons a few times to center the scan on your desired heading, and then select your desired scan size to a different setting prior to performing a scan. Using a smaller scan size gives you more "button presses" in smaller intervals when using the arrow buttons to move the FCR.

Most likely an error in the DCS F-16C Early Access Guide.

The Slave function is always enabled by default in the Pilot crewstation, whereas the CPG can toggle Slave on and off using the SLAVE button on the right TEDAC handgrip. As a result, the Pilot is given two functions to mitigate the absence of a SLAVE button. 1) The WPN->UTIL page displays a CUEING option that allows the Pilot to hide the ACQ LOS Reticle and the Cueing Dots around the central LOS Reticle. These symbology elements are only displayed in the CPG crewstation when Slave is enabled, but this allows the Pilot to selectively remove these elements from the symbology. 2) If the Pilot's selected sight is FCR, Slave is enabled by default when the FCR is initially selected. However, if the Pilot moves the FCR centerline by pressing either of the arrow buttons on the FCR page, Slave will become disabled in the Pilot crewstation. Slave will be re-enabled if the Pilot selects any Acquisition source from the ACQ selection menu, even if the existing ACQ is re-selected; or if the Pilot selects HMD as the sight.

Because terrain possibilities would preclude such a process for the same reasons that AUTO doesn't work in every scenario, and the FCR would have no way of knowing what the terrain looks like prior to scanning. As it is, having a crew that is properly trained for when to use each mode is much more effective than having the FCR itself try to figure it out and make wrong assumptions. Aerospace engineers had years to figure out the best design for the radar system that was being developed for the time, they didn't do it in a few days.

The tree collision models will block FCR transmissions, which includes the trunks and branches but not the leaves/foilage. So depending on the thickness and luck, it is possible that the FCR is still getting through.

@giullep, if you are pressing the FCR button on the MPD and nothing is appearing or changing on the MPD, there is only several possibilities as to what is happening: 1) You have a mod (or a combination of more than one mod) installed that is causing issues with your DCS install. 2) You are not on the current Open Beta (which unlocked the FCR button), or you are on Stable (which does not have the FCR page modeled yet). 3) The update process to the current Open Beta version did not complete correctly. In any case, you will need to remove all mods, ensure you are on Open Beta, and update/run a repair on your Open Beta install to ensure it has been updated correctly to the Open Beta version that has the FCR page enabled. Otherwise, there is no other reason for the FCR button to be non-functional for you while it is functioning for everyone else when they play your track.

The X symbols only represent the estimated location of where the missile was fired to. This is the case when you fire a SAL missile using the TADS as well. The X symbols have no bearing on the FCR targeting process because neither the aircraft or any of the onboard sensors know where those missiles go after launch, whether the missiles hit the intended target near the X, or if the target is still functioning or destroyed, etc. The X symbols represent the locations at which missiles have been shot, no more no less. For all the radar knows, the missile could have missed, and the original tank drove away into the treeline and a other tank drove to the same location. When you perform another scan, the FCR is only telling the pilot what it sees in the latest scan, and puts the current FCR target icons over top of the X symbols (although you can see them). It is up to the pilot to exercise the appropriate judgement and prudence to determine how to use the information the FCR is providing.

There is already a command for this. Regarding other George features, many are being considered, but I have nothing new to share in that regard.

I think there are some misconceptions regarding what the FCR is and what it is not. As Wags stated in his first FCR video, the FCR drastically speeds up the target acquisition, classification, and prioritization process, rather than relying on the TADS optics alone. The FCR and the TADS are both sensors for targeting, but they each have their own limitations in how they can do so. The TADS can tell you precisely what a target is, but it can only view the battlefield through a very narrow aperture; and under some conditions may not detect a legitmate target that is cold (when using FLIR) or if it blends into the background (when using DTV). The FCR on the other hand can scan a large area of the battlefield extremely quickly looking for vehicles of military significance, which can be detected using radar, regardless of whether it is emitting heat or if it is hidden within the background from camouflage or lighting contrast. But the FCR cannot tell you what the target is, but it can classify the type and quickly prioritize what is out there, which allows the narrow aperture of the TADS optics to rapidly to be focused at the relevant targets very quickly. But if you just see a hot object in the FLIR, it may be an enemy vehicle, it may be a friendly vehicle, it may be a destroyed vehicle. Nothing is stopping you from putting a missile (or a second or third) into it. The same thing is the case with the FCR, except the FCR is seeing a radar reflective object instead of a hot object. You can certainly blindly fire missiles at targets detected by the FCR, but that wasn't what the FCR was solely meant to do, unless one isn't concerned with depleting scores of missiles not knowing whether they are having the desired effect on the battlefield. It is no different than shooting a missile from an F-16 into another plane. The radar may then be tracking the target in a steep dive, but is it a falling piece of wreckage or is the enemy pilot evading in a dive to lower altitude? It doesn't know, so the pilot must use discretion to decide what the next action should be.

It's not. When in COOP the Pilot's range should directly repeat the CPG's range. So if the CPG is lasing a target and it says "2355" in the CPG's symbology, it should say "2355" in the Pilot's as well.

Reported. Thank you.

It is not possible.

The missile is detected by both systems simultaneously, but the systems detect threats in different ways. The RLWR detects the launch of a radar-guided missile by the change in the radar signals from the launching air defense system. The CMWS optically detects the missile itself. But just because the missile is detected by two different systems, that does not mean the weapon itself is being guided via two methods. The CMWS just passively detects the presence of a missile launch; it doesn't know what type of missile it is. The RLWR detects a change in radar signals associated with some types of radar-guided missiles. However, neither of these systems will 100% tell you what sort of weapon system is being fired at you. A MiG-29 locks on to your aircraft and fires a radar-guided R-27R, the RLWR will detect the MiG-29's radar switching to missile guidance mode to guide the R-27R toward your aircraft; and the CMWS will detect the missile itself. A MiG-29 locks on to your aircraft and fires an IR-guided R-27T, the RLWR will detect the MiG-29's radar tracking you but will not indicate the radar switching to a missile guidance mode since the R-27T requires no such guidance; while the CMWS will detect the missile itself. A MiG-29 keeps its radar silent and fires an IR-guided R-73, the RLWR won't detect the MiG-29 at all but the CMWS will detect the missile itself. In each instance, the CMWS sees a missile coming, regardless of what radar signals (if any) the RLWR detects. It isn't so much what each of the two systems are telling you as much was what they are individually not telling you.

One of the key aspects of the AH-64D's FCR system when it was conceived was to be less reliant on other helicopter types to perform its mission in destroying large numbers of tanks and armor. But as @NeedzWD40 mentioned, the advantage of the AH-64D is its ability to work in large groups as a singular fighting force. Now, this is not a "this aircraft" versus "that aircraft type" sort of rivalry, but rather a different type of fighting style. In the 80's and 90's when the original concept of the AAWWS was being conceived, there were a variety of different unit types doing different missions with different aircraft. You had AH-64's as both attack battalions and as cavalry squadrons, with some differences in doctrine for each. Conversely, you also had OH-58's in both cavalry squadrons and light attack battalions. Again, different mission sets and doctrine. If you had a company of mechanized armor in one valley and an entire regiment of armor in the other, you would obviously send the light attack unit to take on the armor company while the heavy attack battalion takes on the regiment of armor. If you weren't sure where the enemy was, you could either use a cavalry squadron of AH-64's or one of OH-58D's, or even a combination of the two. Depending on how large the enemy force is anticipated to be, how far you are planning to send your helos, or for how long they need to be out there; this would dictate what capabilities, weapons load, and range/station time you would need, which drives which aircraft types would be best suited. The bottom line is, don't get locked into only doing a type of mission based on what the first letter of the helicopter designation may be. Use each aircraft in ways that take advantage of their abilities.

Unfortunately, I don't know what is planned in that regard.

That doesn't make it true. That site is the same as wikipedia, globalsecurity.org, deagel, etc. They all circular report the same "facts" about military hardware, often word for word as they copy the data from each other. But just because the internet says so, doesn't make it true. As this thread has varied greatly from the original topic, I am moving on. Believe what you want.

No, never. It is not simply a "not used" scenario. They are physically incapable of it. No software or hardware to facilitate such munitions. As I stated in the post you quoted:

No AH-64A or AH-64D's have ever fielded any air-to-air missile in the US Army, whether that be the Sidewinder, Stinger, or otherwise. This is all internet folklore, and does not reflect reality. There were plans to field Stinger to the US Army AH-64A's and D's, going back to the 1980's, and there were even limited test firings of Sidewinder from the A-model as well. However, these plans never actually materialized outside of a few limited test firings, and the weapons were never fielded or operationally employed. The aircraft do not even have the hardware to do it, aside from the structural mounting lugs on the wingtips and the buttons in the cockpit. There is an entire thread in the wishlist section that debates this endlessly, but again, it doesn't reflect reality and there are no plans to implement air-to-air missiles in DCS AH-64D.