Raptor9

Not sure what possible improvements you think should be necessary. AGM-114's are anti-tank missiles, they are not designed to engage aircraft. They can certainly be used against aircraft like other similar missiles, since the missile does not know or care whether the target is touching the ground or not; but intercepting aircraft that are maneuvering around the sky are not what they are designed to destroy.

It is not a matter of want. The AH-64D in US Army has never been capable of employing Stingers or any air-to-air missiles. Such a feature would be as unrealistic as giving the AH-64 AGM-65 missiles. Further, there are no public references for how these weapons function in any of the foreign variants of the AH-64 that have been modified to do so.

@[HOUNDS] CptTrips Please don't misunderstand, not trying to argue the topic; just trying to provide the proper context since you mentioned it seemed like an odd design choice. The context I was trying to provide was that using expendable countermeasures against radar threats vs IR threats are quite different. The CMWS as a whole includes both the missile warning sensors and the flare dispensers, and the purpose is to provide protection against IR-guided missiles that have already been launched at the aircraft. However, the combined radar and laser warning system (RLWR) is designed to warn the crew of threats so they can take action prior to being engaged. The idea of automatically dispensing chaff may be useful for high-speed aircraft, but it doesn't really do any good to make a cloud of chaff around the helicopter while it is in a hovering battle position trying to snipe tanks. Hope that provides some clarity.

A key difference being that when such threats are initially detected, a missile is already on the way.

It's also very easy to make judgements without a full understanding of the why. This can be seen quite often like "I bet if the engineers could go back and design this aircraft's systems differently because of [insert function] they would." This betrays a lack of understanding of the how the aircraft was intended to be employed. Aircraft are not just slapped together in a haphazard way based on what components are available or simply just to fly to point A and shoot the weapon mounted to it. Everything from the avionics to the cockpit interface to the sensors are designed to suit how the aircraft is meant to fight for the military that intends to use it. This is why aircraft like the AH-64D, F-15E, F-16C, F/A-18C are so different in their fire control systems and cockpit interfaces. There may be common threads between some aircraft, especially when they come from the same manufacturer, but each of these aircraft are designed to fulfill a specific role within a specific military branch, and the associated doctrine within that mission set and that branch. What may seem like an odd choice in design to a Navy F/A-18 pilot may make perfect sense to an Air Force F-16 pilot, and vice versa. Different doctrine, different missions, different methods of fighting in combat. A forum post that does a good job in explaining this reasoning is here: EDIT: Another example from a while back is someone asking why the AH-64D, as a "CAS aircraft", doesn't have the ability to perform ADF to ground force radio frequencies; only to NDB navigation stations. The entire premise is not based in reality. Despite the fact that many DCS user files feature missions in which you locate friendly forces by using ADF to their radio transmissions, that is something that is not done in real-life during the conduct of close air support. Further, the AH-64 was not designed to be a CAS aircraft, despite the fact it has been performing a CAS-like mission for most of the past several decades. My point of this long story is that there are a lot of concepts that are floating around in the community that doesn't reflect reality, and these can unfortunately lead to unrecognized misconceptions.

Ultimately, if you are relying on expendable countermeasures to save you from getting shot down, you are already behind the power curve. The reason why aircraft have things like RWR or other warning systems is so the pilot can do something about a threat before they get a warhead launched their way. It would be like if someone was in a firefight and didn't bother taking cover because they had a bulletproof vest on; in that they don't mind being shot at because they have something that "should" protect them.

The RLWR has no effect on any expendable countermeasures, and the CMWS only controls flare dispensing, despite the chaff quantity also being displayed on the CMWS control panel. As such, there is no automatic chaff dispensing capability. Setting the chaff to MANUAL or PROGRAM only affects how chaff is dispensed when the dispense button is pressed. I recommend reviewing the Aircraft Survivability Equipment chapter in the DCS AH-64D Early Access Guide.

Nowhere does it say that rockets cannot be fired from a hover. In fact, firing rockets from AH-64's while in a hover is routinely practiced. Firing rockets (or missiles) when hovering or flying at very low altitudes over the surface is a hazard because the munitions themselves may impact the ground near the helicopter; it is not because of the risk of ingesting rocket motor exhaust. Firing rockets from inboard pylons or in large salvos carries an increased possibility of the AH-64 engines surging, which is why that restriction is written. However, it is certainly feasible to do so (and was also employed on regular occasions in the past, despite folklore claiming otherwise); but given the increased risk, this is a practice that is avoided nowadays. It's a matter of statistical likelihood versus the unnecessary risk of doing so. (AH-64D's ripple firing from two outboard launchers in large salvos as a demonstration in 2015) Anyway, this AH-64 talk is of course a little off topic in the Mi-24 section, but I wanted to bring some context to some of the rumors regarding the subject.

There is no such limit for the AH-64.

@markturner1960, your sight is still set to HMD.

Please refer to page 271 (last page of Radio Communications chapter) of the DCS AH-64D Early Access Guide. Separate commands for these are unnecessary however.

These are non-functional. Those are actually blackout curtains for limiting instrument panel glare from shining outside the cockpit during night operations, as are the sliding panels on top of the instrument panel itself.

Radar warning receivers can only detect the presence of radar signals. They cannot detect how those radar signals are being used by the source of the emissions. If the radar signal indicates that the source radar is in a "Tracking" mode, that is the only information that it is indicating. It cannot determine what the radar is tracking, or even whether an attack is underway. Even when the RWR indicates the radar is in "Launch" mode, it is only determining that the radar is operating in a detectable missile guidance mode; it cannot determine whether a missile is actually being directed toward your aircraft or not. Depending on the type of radar that the RWR is indicating, your aircraft could be under attack while the RWR symbol is displayed in "Search" mode. So understanding the capabilities of each type of threat is important, and understanding what aircraft sensors are telling you as well as what they are not telling you.

@kenbou, I believe your confusion lies in the fact that you are equating the AH-64's rotor system to a single rotating body, and thus subjecting it to the same physics. Some rotation physics apply to the rotor system, like gyroscopic precession, but the main rotor is not a rotating body like a wheel. It is composed of four individual airfoils, not something like a control moment gyro or a reaction wheel like you are describing. There have been rotor systems that incorporate gyroscopic stability into the design to take advantage of the effect you are describing, but these require a single rotating body to do so, like the Lockheed CL-475. But the AH-64 is not one of these types of helicopters.

Hello @TIGEREAGLE, this is known and has already been fixed internally. Thanks.

To clarify a few things; as Floyd1212 said, you don't need to add your own aircraft to the NET page. That would be like trying to call your own phone number. As for setting a radio as Primary within a preset, this has no functional effect on the radios or the datalink. All this does is highlight the corresponding radio and frequency in white on the COM page. If I have a preset allocated for an AWACS, and I know the AWACS is on the UHF frequency within that preset, I might designate UHF SC as the Primary frequency as a way of reminding myself and my crewmember which radio I need to tune to talk to them. It's just a "human factors" feature to draw the attention of the pilots to the intended frequency for use.

This is not why rotor blades have a twist. Like an airplane's wings, rotor blades produce lift across the entire length of the airfoil; however unlike the wings on airplanes, the relative airspeed across the length of the rotor blade is not uniform due to the different rotational circumference. The outer tips produce more lift since they are operating in higher airflow velocities than the inboard portions near the rotor blade root. This is why rotor blades are designed with a blade twist. This creates a higher angle of incidence for the inner portions of the airfoil, allowing the inboard portions to generate more lift. This twist distributes the lifting force more uniformly across the rotor blade span, reduces internal blade stress, and increases the blade loading near the inboard section of the blade.

Common misconception. The UK's engines are rated at a higher shaft horsepower, but they don't provide any additional power benefits under most circumstances since they are still limited by the drivetrain. Only when operating at extremely hot temperatures and high altitudes do the additional power of these engines become relevant. US AH-64's often don't mount the FCR when it is not considered tactically necessary, such as low-intensity conflicts in which it isn't needed. The UK purchased an FCR for each individual aircraft and mount them all the time due to their doctrine of use, not because of their engines, which rarely provide any power benefits anyway. If the OP was using the loadout he posted, the munitions or the fuel should be reduced to gain more power margin. If he is hovering at 95-100% torque, the engines are not the limiting factor, the drivetrain is. More powerful engines won't make a difference, and removing the FCR will only provide about 3% additional torque margin (if he has one) which isn't significant enough to gain any sort of additional climb performance in a hover.

Yes, please post a track. The RLWR should report each threat. I encountered a similar event on Through the Inferno - Sinai last week, but there were a bunch of Roland units that were near the base I was taking off from, and they were all transmitting. So yeah, I wasn't surprised I was getting pinged a bunch of times about it. If it is only one or two threats that are continuously transmitting, then that would be a problem if those same threats are being repeated. If they are turning on and off, then that might also cause such behavior.

I don't know of any. My response was aimed at the renewed bug report traffic about this topic after the 2.9 update, even though I hadn't encountered any issues with the -114L prior to 2.9. The intent was to provide my own recent observations of the behavior in 2.9, but to also reinforce that I wasn't having issues in 2.8 either. The 3 suggestions I posted above were more of a shot in the dark to potentially help anyone that may be struggling with their behavior, that may not be related to anything involving the INU.

I avoided posting to this thread because I didn't want it to be misconstrued as "Working for me, so must be fine." However, in light of the recent threads that have been popping up, and since people are generally only vocal when things go wrong, not when there are no apparent issues, I wanted to share some experiences here. I've been playing multiplayer about 4 nights a week since 2.9 dropped, to include large scale public servers like Through the Inferno, and I've had a success rate above 90% in hitting my targets with AGM-114L. When the missile did fail to strike the intended target, it was because it was very close to another target, it was near obstructions like buildings or treelines that interfered with the missile's flight path, or we started aggressive evasive maneuvers just prior to or during launch. Most of these multiplayer sessions exceeded 2 hours in length, and on none of them did I ever reset the INU, despite the perpetual white PSN on the main TSD page. As some advice, verify the following before launch: 1) You are keeping the TADS stable when lasing the target. 2) If the missile displays LOBL when you finish lasing, allow it to find the target so that it displays RF MSL TRACK, otherwise it didnt actually lock onto the target before launch (just like how the laser-guided missiles say PRI CHAN TRK when they actually see the laser). 3) The missile is fired within the displayed launch constraints as soon as you finish lasing the target. I've seen a lot people shooting these missiles in very bizarre ways, ranging from 90 degree off-axis shots to lasing the target and holding on to the missile for an amount of time before firing. (This is as strange as locking on to an enemy aircraft, pointing away from the enemy aircraft, and then firing an AMRAAM) Not doing these three things will only reduce the likelihood of the missile striking the target that you want. I'm not saying anyone here is not doing these things, but I have seen a number of interesting "techniques" among some players. I bring these things up as unsolicited suggestions since on more than one occassion, even before 2.9, I will have played in multiplayer sessions exceeding several hours, firing off large numbers of the radar-guided Hellfires, after multiple trips to the FARP. One particular 3 hour session last week I fired 34 AGM-114L's and the only one that did not hit its target was the one that was blown up as it left the rail when a SAM from a Tunguska hit me at precisely the same time.

This behavior is how the cursor slews work. When applying a cursor slew to the navigation cursor, it doesn't move the navigation position of the aircraft or the steerpoints (unless you are doing a Fix); it just moves the SPI and applies a delta to the symbology to match this cursor slew. This delta is applied to all steerpoints at once. After a slew is applied, you must use Cursor Zero to remove the accumulated cursor deltas. So if you slew the TGP 500 meters west of steerpoint 1, as you sequence through each steerpoint the SPI will be 500 meters west from each steerpoint. If you press Cursor Zero (CZ), this slew is removed.

The EUFD buttons were re-enabled with the latest COM and datalink additions that came in 2.9. Stable will receive these changes when it too is updated to 2.9.

@v2tec, no air-to-air missiles of any kind were ever implemented on US Army AH-64D's. As such, these are not realistic loadouts and are not on the roadmap for that reason. Threads merged again.

This indicates that Heading Hold is engaged, which has been there since the initial release of Early Access. The only thing that was added a few months ago was the blue "hold mode" indicators on the Control Indicator overlay so that one can see when the hold modes are actually engaged with the flight control servos. This reflects the accurate behavior of the AH-64D's Heading Hold, which is always enabled any time the aircraft is not weight-on-wheels. The specific logic of it is described within the Flight Management Computer section of the DCS: AH-64D Early Access Guide. In the 2.9 update last week, the Heading Hold "breakout" values were implemented for when Attitude Hold is also engaged, so that the Heading Hold can still be overridden with the appropriate magnitude of pedal input. Prior to 2.9, the Heading Hold "breakout" values were only present if Attitude Hold was disengaged.