NeedzWD40

The smoke rockets we have are M274 training practice rounds, not M156 smoke marker rounds. As a result, they only give a brief flash of smoke.

More clarity is needed. Is he trying to use the TEDAC display or the IHADSS for TADS? Has he tried turning the TEDAC off and using IHADSS exclusively to target? Or has he brought the monocle up when using the TEDAC? Also, are you as pilot utilizing gun and/or rockets to assist his attacks?

I took the time to play SCUD Busters and I can only say this one is really quite broken. My first go around, my flight members did weird behavior and basically drove into one another on the field, leaving me to go by myself. The F-16s never started and so I ended up taking down the SA-6 myself with cannon, then I edged closer to the base and knocked out a BRDM. I weaved through it and noticed nothing was shooting at me. Alright, broken. Second go around, my #4 wouldn't take off and my #2 and #3 collided with one another on the way to the target. The F-16s started up this time and properly HARM'd their targets, so I set up at the battle point and edged a bit closer for a rocket attack. This took care of most of the infantry threats, but I was PK'd by a BRDM as I poked around the base. The final try I actually got all of my flight members to the target area and rather than setting up at the indicated point, set up west of the target. I took 3 pods of M433 fuzed M151s and saturated the target area, then tasked my flight members with hitting the various vehicles lined up via the cover me command. I used AGM-114 to hit a couple of prominent infantry points, then used the remainder to hit a BMP and a BRDM. Closing in, I finished off two more BRDMs with the cannon, then clean sweep'd most of the SCUDs as my flight was lobbing missiles. This one would probably be easier if you could get the AI to make a beaten zone with their rockets, but the AI only practices direct fire with rockets so their utility is limited. It was also a chore to micromanage them as they tended to bounce around en route, causing near-collisions with one another (as well as hitting the ground constantly).

I haven't played these outside of the Red Flag mission where I just hugged the ground until within weapons range, if it's the one I'm thinking of. What I'd do would be to leverage indirect fires, especially in the first scenario. If you already know where the target is, use the CAQ function, put the target coordinates in manually, or generate a target point with TADS. Find a point on the terrain within 4-5km, hunker down, fire some rockets at the target area. Bob up or move and assess from there to determine if further rounds are required. M433 fuzed M151 or M229s would probably be ideal, allowing you to clear out infantry and/or MANPADS. Cannon can also be used, though you will have to get within 2900 meters because the rounds still magically disappear after that distance. For the second scenario, I hugged some mountains and then stuck the nose out over a peak to assess, found the target, and engaged with missiles. You want to stay low enough that your CPG is having to get out and open gates for you.

Succinctly written, but I think this is part of where I have to remind folks to temper their expectations. For example, the FCR doesn't have an IFF capability: it can't tell the difference between an enemy vehicle and a friendly vehicle. You'll get mostly the same information as you would from a F-16's GMT mode, so you'll still have to VID targets in a contested environment. BFT would be the real tool for that, though of course you'd want to VID to be sure anyways. Likewise, you're not going to be able to spin up all 16 AGM-114Ls and fire off on 16 different targets all at once with definite confirmation that each missile will go for the exact target you want. If folks can understand what the AH-64D was built to do as opposed to what they want it to do, I think there'd be less disappointment all around. Ie, the desire having Stinger or Sidewinder because of frequent operations outside of friendly air defense as well as air cover. Both weapons are hardware solutions to a software problem and while I would appreciate having them, I can understand why they wouldn't be a priority in light of US Army doctrine. When you don't work within that doctrine, then you start to see shortcomings with the design. With a lot of time in all the DCS helicopters (probably way too much), I can't agree that the FCR would be the greatest advantage of the AH-64 over the others. Within my use cases, the weapons, TADS, ergonomics, displays, and ASE completely eclipse the Ka-50 in every way, shape and form. Don't get me wrong: I like the Ka-50 for what it is, but I usually run into some kind of limitation with its capabilities that restrict the things I'd like to do with it. Of course, that's very subjective as we've seen here and I've butted heads with many folks on the topic. Bottom line, if the expectation is that the AH-64D will be some kind of souped-up Ka-50, there will be no end to the disappointment because that's not what the aircraft was built to do in the real world. If the intent of the DCS AH-64D is to create a realistic and accurate likeness of the US Army's AH-64D Block 2 circa 2005-2010, the end result will be a module that fits in a very particular puzzle, one that requires certain considerations from the players and scenario designers. FWIW, I play the AH-64D almost exclusively from the front seat.

Can we have more information on what this means? Is it related to having to remake warehouse definitions with each update?

Tunisia added it as an option for the OH-58Ds they bought: https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/tunisia-oh-58d-kiowa-warrior-aircraft-equipment-and-support AFAIK it was never used on US Army OH-58Ds nor in an allowed loadout configuration.

Well, I suppose that a B61 is the ultimate "screw with me and I'll kill us all" weapon for the OH-58D then.

What can I say? I like to rustle jimmies. My "blablabla" comes from studying Army Aviation for quite some time, knowing more than a few people involved, and a small sliver of awareness of how these systems are intended to be applied on the field. Thus when I see a lot of discontent over the lack of systems such as the FCR, especially when it comes to a total misunderstanding of how said systems work, I'll chime in to annoy to explain the capabilities that exist even in absence of that equipment. Even in "full spectrum warfare," an AH-64D without the FCR and AGM-114L is an incredibly capable and potent weapon. It achieves this capability not by its own weaponry, but through the far more important data linking and information sharing utilities. In other words, the key capabilities that were added over a plain weapons and sensor package alone (which had been one of the intended upgrades in the late 80s). I understand it's hard to believe, but the ability to work as part of a team eclipses any individual system's capabilities. The AH-64D was built to work within that framework by integrating with a combined air, land, and sea team composed of many working parts. Within that picture, the FCR has a place, but it is still a very small part of the whole. For the record, under the US Army's original plan, only 1 out of 4 aircraft would be FCR-equipped. Perhaps it's time to write another guide...

The same FCR that is often removed due to lack of use? That FCR? The same EC-665 that the Australian Army is replacing with AH-64E? And let me know when the EC665 can carry 16 ATGM/76 rockets and 1200 rounds of 30mm with an endurance of ~2 hours. Right! OK I'll- Ooh. I just blew up a friendly on the right flank. Oh man, blue on blue on the left! Darn, if only we had PFZs and NFZs with a datalink...

Say what? The datalink, IDM, communications suite, navigation suite, etc. don't make it great as it is? You don't need the FCR to engage targets from defilade. All the existing weapons can be utilized from cover in an indirect fashion, including the laser AGM-114s. The FCR and AGM-114Ls aren't mythical "I win" buttons for the aircraft. They are powerful tools, no doubt about it, but they serve only as augmentation to an already incredibly powerful weapons, sensors, and communications suite.

My father's brother's cousin's nephew's college roommate knew somebody who knew somebody involved with the AHIP program in the '80s as well as some involved in TF118 back in the day. The reason for being against these additional weapons is that without any real data on employment, you're guessing as to how they were integrated into the aircraft. The documentation only covers the authorized and approved weapons loads, not fantasy or test loads. If you throw in guesswork, then anything becomes possible: you in essence have ~1600lbs to work with, which means everything up to and beyond a B61 is theoretically possible. Even if you dial it back to say, TOW, you're still trying to guess as to how such a weapon would be integrated into the MMS and fire control. FYI: they did actually employ M261 pods a couple times during TF118's deployment, but this involved removing the MMS and a severely reduced fuel load. This loadout was abandoned in short order due to the performance inhibitions (~1050lbs for the rockets + ~500lbs for the crew leaves only ~200lbs available for fuel when removing the MMS). It worked because they basically just told the weapons computer they had 38 rockets onboard (the 58D never had the AH-1E/F/AH-64's RMS). Get an appropriate variation and it's part of the suite. Most examples are from the AH-64E series, which is markedly different from the variant simulated in DCS. Alternatively, a DJP from Mitsubishi would fit, but you're going to have to give up your CMWS and flare packs for it. The testbed A model had significant issues with Stinger integration in the 80s; there's a document available on dtic.mil that's distribution A describing how they integrated it. Among the issues identified: no way to cue the seeker; no way to cage/uncage the seeker; no integration with the FCS (gross safety issues as a result); difficulty in determining lock status; and a host of other issues. Find the (open source) documentation for how the weapon is integrated to the aircraft, then make your case. If you desire to make fantasy loads available, then perhaps DCS is not the game you're looking for. ATAS on the other hand was an approved loadout for 58A/C/D models and it was also widely hated. The words described to me at one point were "yuk ATAS, what a POS!"

Unit, date, deployment? Outside of safety tests, there was no operational usage. Again, the testing was in support for the F upgrade, which shaved a couple hundred pounds off the empty weight. Only a handful of the modified GAU-19/Bs were delivered for this test routine. If you went to any operational unit and checked their TOE, you wouldn't find the GAU-19 on the list. The reason is that the OH-58D always struggled with weight, especially at the end of its service life. The GAU-19/B still clocked in at about twice the weight of the M296 and brought with it a number of other problems. The M134 is a similar situation, except now you're also reducing the caliber and thus your range and power. In light of this, the M296 was more than adequate for the job, and the saved weight could be put into fuel or munitions (and maybe the crew could have Big Macs for lunch instead of a small fruit cup). Won't clear the ground, in addition to the aforementioned weight problems. Somewhere I have a picture of a 58D with a M261 rocket pod and the edge is literally centimeters shy of the ground. Sources? Test beds don't count, because otherwise there's a lot more than you might be aware of. Off the top of my head: 20mm cannon in place of copilot's seat, TOW launchers with sight above copilots head (this was so heavy they could barely takeoff), 7 cluster rocket pod launchers, 6 cluster rocket pod launchers (same as the 7 shots on UH-1), 7.62mm gunpods, M296 on the starboard side, DAGR pods on the M272 rails, and FIM-43 launchers in streamlined housings. These were all aviation test loadouts that never attained operational nor safe usage and most were on the older A/C model (in preparation to arm the at the time upcoming D model).

They tested the GAU-19 in the early to mid 00s and the weight was too much. The modified GAU-19/B was approved at the tail end of the 58D's service to support the then-upcoming F upgrade. I've never seen operational usage of either the GAU-19 nor the M134 on the 58D, though there was some usage with the 134 and the older A/Cs. This was not widely used due to weight as the older A/Cs struggled with a typical combat load. No foreign user has opted for anything on their Ds outside of what the US Army has used. The .50 and Hydras are more than adequate for light gunship duties, as evident by the fact the operational users of the D haven't seen fit to change them out with other weaponry. In short: no, not realistic.

The OH-58D never used anything other than the M296 machine gun, ATAS, Hydras, and AGM-114.

I rarely need pedal at all when initially taking off as the yaw SAS normally handles that well enough. Right pedal for nose to tail trim at speed. Depending on conditions, you won't be able to hover near or at max gross weight. If both engines are operational, then 100% is your max torque; beyond that is a few second limit, then after that your transmission will be wrecked. This is not currently modeled, but it's not a good habit to be overtorquing the engines anyways. Your sea level restriction is about 20000lbs for standard conditions, give or take a couple hundred pounds and this does not give you much room to maneuver: you're pulling 100% to make it hover in that condition. For 1500ft you're looking in the realm of 18500-19000lbs for max hover IGE.

I would recommend doing the free trial first rather than buying it as your first helicopter. It can be a fun module, but as a first helicopter it has a lot of limitations that can be disappointing and the handling can be very squirrely as well as unrealistic. At a minimum, I'd trial the UH-1 before committing, as that module sets the right kind of framework before jumping into the Gazelle.

Do you mean you turn the IHADSS off or simply don't use TADS video at all? If neither of those, then the HAD/High Action Display serves this purpose. The FOR/Field of Regard box tells you where the sensor is looking relative to the aircraft's centerline. You can also use the TADS sensor bearing carat below the heading tape.

It seems to happen only when you're a single crew member. When multicrewing, you have to align as per usual.

Fun fact: The Iranians tried the AGM-65A on their AH-1Js and discontinued use because launching it damaged the airframe.

Hi folks, This took way longer than I wanted it to, but I was able to finally sit down and finish my rockets guide. It is not a comprehensive document nor is it intended to cover all aspects of rocket employment in the AH-64, but instead should offer some use techniques outside of the usual scope. I had hoped to make it a forum post, but the graphics and layout work better as a downloadable document for those interested. Disclaimer: I am not a professional pilot nor armed service member, former or otherwise. This guide only applies to the DCS AH-64 as of December 2022. dcs_ahrockets.pdf

Is there any chance this could be reconsidered? I realize it's an unrealistic feature but it was useful in some very niche cases.

I agree, more variety can be fun and enjoyable. Black Shark 3 allowing us to roll back to a non-fiction variation is icing on the cake. However, I do have to ask what the bar is for fiction/what-if. Are we looking at the possibility of something like a F-23 done through theorizing what it might've been like had it been accepted into service? Or maybe we might see a variation of the Ka-52 through one of the envisioned prototypes? A Mi-28 or 28A prior to the N? I can think of a lot of modules that would be fun to have, along with fictional upgrades to existing ones, so it'd be nice to know where the bar is set so we can adjust our expectations accordingly.

Entirely situational, depending on the terrain and nature of it. If it's flat, then I try to get low and look under the trees; if it's rough and hilly, I try and come at high angles or different vectors if possible. Dense trees/urban tend to call for the M433 RC fused rockets to try and dislodge them.

LO mode seems to work better in most circumstances. The other thing to keep in mind is that if the missile can't see the laser due to obscurement like trees or buildings, it will either see the laser too late or not catch it at all. You can test this by lasing a target in an urban area versus an open area.