Kev2go

No one suggested it warbirds yet. But the OP did have UH1H in the title, and in other threads he did argue anything could use them because of how easy integration is. And as to the Hornet getting cheek station Litening. Yeah it shouldn't since its not a EF18 Hornet , nor was it initially planned. As an Interim to the ATFLIR, the litening 2 was only supposed to have been added for centerline position like the USMC do use it, but you know it seems to becoming a bad habbit that if a given community whines hard enough, ED may cave in to the mob over unrealistic features, like we saw with the this aforementioned cheek station TGP issue , or with the F16's getting LAU88 put back on the planned list.

what? Ww2 warbirds never carried hydra rocket pods. Just because it was being developed in the 40s post ww2 doesn't and that hydras are derived from them mean it went into service with them Hydras didn't really become issued until the 50s for ground attack and even then ww2 warbirds or even Korean era f86f didn't get these. So nope. Unless you have a valid primary source documentation like a manual that says they could, then you are just playing in the realm of speculative fi/ alt historical fantasy realm., to try to say that apkws could and should be slapped on to them. Because we certainly don't have Mark 80s, cbus or gb12s slapped onto warbirds or Sabres, and give lack of any precision capability or needed with a digital sms system,means even those would be simpler to integrate

If only there were other intended uses for the A/G radar besides INS updates.

right So i guess when GPS is jammed, and/or bad weather prevents any effective TGP use because the radar is still deemed useless they decide to call it a day and go home ? K Got it.

No of course not. The answer is: its F-35 JSF, or F-15E's. Then nothing

Useless in the context of last couple decades of nothing but middle east low intensity warfare in ideal weather conditions and a permissive environment against small groups of irregular fighters. Sure. Then you have the luxury of not caring about A/G Radar.

No one saying its great. And anyone saying it sucks? Its all relative to what it is compared to. Maybe your discord "SME" from the now cancelled SH mod said so because they flew jets that only had APG73 Phase 1 and not the Phase 2? Or perhaps because of that 1 specific individual that i think you are referring are said it was sucky because is now been flying SH for many years and thus ends up comparing memories of the APG73 to the APG79 AESA radar? So you cannot get a good idea on how the SAR really is if it is only in the vaguest terms and only relative to a AESA radar as a comparison from a few discord tidbits. In any case all this drama could be avoided if only ED had clarified which APG73 version we were getting for certain.

the modern era AT6 texan isn't the same old texan from the 40s that your ww2 pilots trained on. The current At6's have had totally new integrated digital avionics suite. Even more so since the At6 is now being further revamped and marketed as a COIN light attack aircraft for the export market it gets a full suite of weapons as well.

The "nearly as good" or "comparable to" F15E resolution comes from the manufacturer claims with the APG73 Phase 2 upgrades, which were specifically made to adress shortcomings from Medium resolutions SAR and upgrade it to "High resolution SAR". That being said the APG70 itself got A/G further enhanced to " very high resolution" SAR capabilities circa 1997ish, so the F15E likely very well does have even better ground mapping capabilities relative to the Phase 2 series APG73 I think what we might ended up in DCS judging by the quality is only the APG73 Phase 1. Phase 2 could certainly do better quality SAR maps than what was presented in DCS. From a 2003 paper https://www.omgwiki.org/hpec/files/hpec-si/HPEC-SI_CIP_Demonstration.pdf

Yea I agree Same. Reallly looks more like EXP2 with artificial magnifiation. the earlier WIP screenshots EXP 3 seemed to show much greater magnification and a crisper image relative to what was presented in wag's latest video. Then again It was never clarified by wags or any team member if they were modelling the APG 73 Phase 1 or the APG73 Phase 2 radar. That and it also depends on the distance a given target is being mapped from. The closer one is, the more sharp the resolution should be gradually getting. I mean hell even in Real beam mode without any EXP modes utilizied you can't even make out an airstrip , but would will eventually see it fairly clearly within 10 NM. or rather under modeled, if it behaving more like DBS EXP 2 with extra magnification rather than SAR. Then again this is still EA, so i think we can expect will be more fine tuning, and of course more A/G radar updates pertaining to adding in other modes are needed for completion.

No it wouldn't The UH1Y may as well be a completely different beast to the UH1H. Its an a newer design, newer production helicopter with totally different avionics. Dont let the UH1 nomenclature, or even a semblance of visual similarity of its exterior airframe design fool you.

I already described why it shouldnt get them. , and Skatezilla in more detail in particular technical manner already debunked the 100% polug and play a few pages ago

that video is advertising not the original Sniper ATP/XR which came into service for f16s circa 2005/2006ish ( which is what our circa 2007 F16 would get) , but the Sniper ATP-SE a next generation improvement. So of course it would be superior to the litening 2 AT from 2003. I dont know what the stats are from the Original Sniper ATP, but the Litening 2 AT has a CCD resolution of 1024x1024, a FLIR resolution of 640X512, 2 levels of FOV, and 9 levels of zoom. If the original ATP doesn't exceed such specs than it probably isn't better. But also realize that IRL there are newer generation Litening series Targeting pods to compete with lockheeds TGP's, so Northrup is by no menas behind in the curb. In fact they themselves had succeeded the Sniper ATP in capability in 2008 with the Litening 2 G4. That being said overall our ED's TGP's have too crisp resolution when utilizing zoom that they should have.

Ah yes APKWS for everyone, not just UH1H but also including the ww2 warbirds. Cuse why not, and " bruh 100% dumb n easy plug n play integration, no technical challenge amirite?"

I mean Razbam is officially working on the Super Tucano. So that will be close enough i guess.

i get the point your trying to make but the Uh1H variant in question is to new for vietnam anyways. Given the airframe is a post vietnam UH1H production version given it mounts for RWR sensors ( shame they didnt give it the actual APR 39 RWR), and post production modifications such as Radar altimeter, Night vision compatible cockpit, composite rotor blades, in addition to countermeasures suite firmly places the Uh1H into a 1980s setting at the very least, with said Huey's still flying actively into the 1st gulf war.

the radar and datalinks ( UAS and TCDL) did quite alot to enhance tactics. But even without the radar, or even ignoring the datalinks what makes the AH64D more intuitive is the Glass cockpit and HOCAS setup. That being said the AH64A's were indeed refitted with GPS in the late 90s ( technically EGI) , but nevertheless the longbows navigation suite is superior since as opposed to the Ah64A's A10 style CDU for navigation management, The longbow has something along the lines of A HSI/SA type pages you can access via multipurpose displays like you have Hornet although more advanced as it could utilize moving maps of various sorts ( chart, digital terrain , as well as 3D) at least if talking block 2.Block 1's had older hardware , and monochrome displays.

AMASE/DIRCM is a modification adopted and only used on Royal Neatherlands Air force Longbows. it is not in use with the US Army based Longbows. when the AH64D block 3 ( that has since 2013 been re-branded as the AH64E Guardian) starting coming about the US army went with a new protective suite that included AN/AAR57 Missile warning system, with sensors mounted into the airframe rather than needing wingtip pods to be installed to do the same thing without the aerodynamic penalty. That being said there exists what is the Ah64D "extended"block 2 " which were series of improved avionics retrofits and interim modernizations until Block 3 came about. IRRC the Extend block 2's arent upgraded production block 2's but 96 AH64A's converted into these more capable block 2's. I don't have anything concrete in terms of documentations besides some photos or general information , but those "extended" block 2's do have an IR MWS, although with a physical control panel to the suite compared to the block 3/E models. So that being said unless ED is specifically modelling a Dutch Apache, no we wouldn't get AMASE/DIRCM system.

Exactly. Nothing stopping Longbows from working in conjunction with Kiowas. Especially in this case serving alongside a Longbow makes more sense since Polychop has verified that this n fact a very late life Kiowa circa 2017, which coincidentally also happened to be last year of the OH58D's use in active duty service. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4448717&postcount=213 As for Hellfires thers 2 generations of laser based hellfires https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh2012/132.pdf The AGm114K hellfire 2's are more resistant against smoke and other obscurants, has electro optical counter measures, re programmable autopilot. IT has a dual tandem warhead making it capable of dealing with thicker armor in particular with late cold war- post cold war Russian tanks that have Explosive Reactive armor addons, that would largely negate the generation 1's. Also Don't know if they do a modern enough longbow but APKWS would really be nice to have.

Out of curiosity can polychop clarify a general time frame that the OH58D is representative of? It looks like a very late life variant. From my own research i've done it seems this is a very least 2012 but very likely later period Kiowa given certain characteristics such as : replacement of the monochrome displays with color displays, AN/AAR47 V2 MWS and the availability of APKWS.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4448012&postcount=1286 "HUh" what are those longbows doing there? ;)

2:04 ( when video starts) to 2:20 . There goes Wags teasing us again ;) Yet another pointer that the Apache will be the next "eagerly awaited aircraft"

They haven't announced anything officially, so there is nothing to comes to terms with yet. I mean when ED first said they were doing the cobra, it seemed clear it was going to be the Ah1W super cobra, then it was vietnam era Ah1G, then it became Ah1S, then they changed the plans yet again with wags confirming it was in fact going to be the Ah1F variation, and since that time its become apparent the Ah1F is not going to be done immediate foreseeable future , rather put on hold long term hold like F4E project was due to all the other projects they have to get done, and with other " ground breaking mind melting next upcoming module" that they are supposed to eventually announce. That was supposed to be announced in summertime i think it was, but in turn are waiting until Q4 2020 before making said official announcement of the next upcoming mystery project, even if the Apache is a likely possibility.

ED already has experience doing multimode radars, DL, HMD. All stuff in basic foundations that exist in the gen 4 fighters, and especially with the new HMD+ tgp sensor technology being integrated with scorpion HMCS the A10C 2.0 further expanding on existing capabilities within the game engine. Yes different in how they work and are integrated, not the same but you get the point. If they really want to push some boundaries and make something that can genuinely be called the next flagship rotary based module, rather than just another helicopter then the Ah64D is the way to go. In the same way how the A10C was flagship for its day, and the same way how the F/A18C is ED current fixed wing flagship due to the new technologies and changes they needed to introduce to the game engine. To this day the KA50 ( minus 2 person crew coordination that mi24 needs ) is still the most advanced helo that ED has done.

In that specific GR interview he didn't really deny ED ever doing Ah64D. He just said it would be more complicated and difficult module to develop relative to the AH64A model. As an analogy by the same line of reasoning thing would be true that an F16A would have been simpler to develop than an F16C blk 50.