NeedzWD40

I thought about adding some corrections but decided to check myself, so I'll just say that yes, the FCR is that good, and yes, it will, in fact, work in a European environment with camouflage, etc. since that was the original design requirement. The Longbow was on the books before the Cold War ended and the anticipation was it would be fighting in Europe. It'd be rather silly to design an attack helicopter for flying and fighting at treetop level, then handicap it with weapons that only work well in the desert, no? In addition to the fact that laser guided munitions in general were found to have many limitations and problems in ODS, which would've been even more prevalent in Europe -- thus the desire for a all-weather, day-night sensor and guidance system. TL;DR: the FCR is a sensor and isn't mandatory for AGM-114L use.

So, basically: 360 degree scan only applies in the A/A mode for the radar. A/G for this era is limited to the forward sector. It is capable of scanning for both air and ground targets, but only out to 8km for this particular version. The short range is due to the characteristics of MMW, since being such a high frequency means that the waves are affected by even gasses in the atmosphere -- but you get a lot of advantages with it. It has already been elaborated on, but 8km is more than adequate for the kind of targets the AH-64 is intended to deal with; it's about the max range that the SA-8 and SA-19 can shoot, which were the key threats to the aircraft. The AH-64D has an IDM for data linking with other AH-64Ds and aircraft capable of talking with the IDM. Thus, it is possible for a FCR equipped aircraft to find targets and send them toward NR/DWO aircraft. Only the more recent AH-64E models have Link 16, so prior to that you need to have some intermediary to distribute data between different aircraft. OH-58D-AH-64D teaming is more like "use the cheaper aircraft to poke and prod the enemy, not the really expensive one." As with a lot of things, this has changed over time and reality. Not much in the way of datalinking between the two because OH-58D didn't get a lot of upgrades over the years til the F, which they canned. Big Army figured the RAH-66 would've taken care of that problem. That one turned into constipation; it never came out. OH-58D guys then got told "sucks to be you."

We have MWS/MLWS systems on several aircraft. CMWS on the Block II isn't rocket science. It's not super secret squirrel EW warfare stuff, it's just a cluster of UV sensors that basically say "hey numbnuts, I see something that looks like a missile launch (but is actually just a reflection of the sun on a window)!" Honestly, the baseline EW suite from the AH-64A is far more advanced than CMWS. The whole program is literally so old that FAS has a page on it: https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/siircm.htm That doesn't mean it's going to be a part of the module, but since DCS already has two A-10C iterations with almost identical EW capabilities to the AH-64, it's not far out of reach to figure the Apache will have the same. You can actually script a MWS/MLWS functionality into a mission right now for aircraft (or any unit, really), if one is so inclined.

If you go by strict 2002 date, then there really shouldn't be any Block IIs in number. Majority would've still been Block I (the first Block II aircraft wasn't delivered until 2003). Given the relatively slim available evidence currently, I believe the key words are using a 2002 era manual (with changes) as a reference for a later aircraft. As a point of interest, much of that manual that I'm certain is widely referenced also has inclusions of various features that were uncommon until a few years later. Just because the date doesn't match isn't an exclusive indicator over what will or won't be there. Further, there's a ton of mix and match going on: you can find AH-64A with CMWS, AH-64D Block I with ASPI and CMWS, AH-64D Block II with TEDAC and standard exhaust with no CMWS -- there's very few hard and fast rules. It takes a trained eye and it's better to roll with "this year, this unit, this deployment, with these capabilities."

As the teaser trailer had M-PNVS, it's a pretty reasonable bet that M-TADS is in the package as well.

Yes. The AH-64 retains the legacy AH-1S/E/F rocket zone system, which is 5 zones spread across all four stations. A and B are on stations 1 and 4 (the outer 12 and inner 4); C and D are on stations 2 and 3 (outer 12, inner 4), and E is spread across all four stations (the center 3). Each zone can have independent settings for warheads, configuration, etc.

The original intent was to have additional hardpoints for customer-selected features, ie AMASE pods on Netherlands AH-64Ds. The US Army used the spot for the aft CMWS sensors, as the location allowed a wider field of view, unobstructed by the stabilator. ATAS was an option for customers, but not widely ordered until recently. Partly because with the FCR and AGM-114L, the aircraft has a potent combo of radar guided ARH missile capability with a similar or better range as Stinger.

Indian, Taiwanese, South Korean, and Japanese AH-64s have Stinger capability. It's always been an option but has only been leveraged by those countries to this point.

Qatar has a desert livery for their AH-64Es and India has a grey scheme for theirs. Just about everyone else has the factory stock olive drab paint.

US Army liveries range from "brand new" to "hey, grab me another can of paint." On a strictly personal basis, I much prefer the JGSDF scheme.

I think if we could make the relatively low resolution maps work in Longbow 1/2, DCS will be fine. Syria in particular has been pretty nice for low altitude helicopter flight, especially on the western part of the map. It's up to scenario designers to make this work effectively and yes, there are limitations, but it's not impossible. The environment is far from perfect, but it's at least an environment and an AH-64 will be able to utilize it. There are a lot of things it will be able to do that are outside of the destruction it can cause alone, and working with a team will be at the front of its capabilities.

Thing is, the teaser video has M-PNVS, so unless they go back and change that, it's most definitely not a 2002 era AH-64D. You can find pictures of 2005 era AH-64Ds with TEDAC in place, though it wasn't common. M-PNVS on the other hand, you don't start seeing commonly until 2007-2008, and by that point TEDAC becomes a lot more visible.

I'm all but certain that this has already been thought of and is on the radar, but I'll bring it up anyways: will we get the option to remove the FCR from the aircraft? I'm assuming it will be a check option like the F-14A/B's LAU-138 rails, so mission creators can remove the FCR from a particular aircraft/slot. In addition, some aircraft retain the de-rotation collar while others remove it entirely, so I would also request an additional option to add/remove that little part as well. D-NR/WO, no de-rotation collar: D-NR/WO, with de-rotation collar:

The good news is that depending on year, unit, and deployment, just about anything goes. So it'll be possible to get M-TADS, M-PNVS, TEDAC, all the nice Block II features, but not ASPI or CMWS. Of course, that might make more than a few people irritated, but that's the way it goes.

It's a lot like the old AH-1s, determining between the MOD-S, PROD-S, E, F, P, Q, etc. depends on what year, who was operating it, where it was, and so on. Block II's were introduced around the '03 timeframe, but weren't widely seen until '05, and then afterward you start seeing slow adoption of CMWS, upturned exhausts, electronic improvements, etc. A late Block II around 2010 will have a lot of similarities with the Block III introduced just a year later. A baseline Block II should primarily have color MPDs with all the fixings, EUFD, TEDAC, and some other electronics upgrades. There did exist a number that didn't have all of those features (in particular, TEDAC), especially early on. I would hazard a guess that something is being lost in translation since the teaser images clearly illustrate the M-PNVS, which is a very late feature. Also, a huge advantage as it has a much higher resolution FLIR coupled with LLTV. Given this, it's also a near-certainty that M-TADS comes with it, which discards DVO and also has a higher resolution FLIR. Late Block II to III/E configuration aren't a lot of changes. There's some better data link capability, uprated engines and transmission, unmanned drone control capabilities (late Block II had receive only unless equipped with VUIT-2), replacement of backup gauges with digital variations, better integration of CMWS with the ASE, and a few others that I can't remember off the top of my head. For DCS, most of this is pointless, especially for what most players will be using it for. Needless to say, there's quite a minefield of ways this could go, depending on how it's executed. A 2005-2007 era US Army AH-64D could be either Block I or II, equipped with CMWS, lack TEDAC, have the upturned exhaust, PNVS and TADS, or come without. There's a lot of evidence for either way, depending on unit, deployment, and location.

By strictest definition, the US Army never utilized ATAS with the AH-64, even though it was tested on both the A and D models. I'm fairly certain that once CMWS became a thing, ATAS was no longer an option for the wingtips and I never saw anything about putting them on stations 1-4. On a pure technical basis, it would be possible as the AH-64DJP version is equipped with ATAS, but for late Block II/III/E the CMWS system would have to be modified or removed to have them.

Yes, it has logic for doing so via similar mechanisms that we have with the LITENING pod. In a lot of videos you generally see manual tracking as there's not much reason to utilize auto tracking. TADS can be slaved in several different ways, to a waypoint, area track, HMD source, FCR target, a laser source, and other mechanics depending on block. Remember that it's basically a targeting pod itself and an evolution of the TSU used on the AH-1, which were actually utilized on the prototypes before the TADS was selected.

The FCR has been well established since the '90s; the only difference from 2002 to 2012 is going to be how the MPDs display the information, which mostly comes down to monochromatic or color. The modes and capabilities, for our purposes, are virtually identical.

Yes, it's all automatically processed by the aircraft computers. It's comparable to the NCTR capability on the F-18.

You can set the azimuth, range, and elevation, yes. Generally speaking, you'll only need to adjust the range and azimuth, leaving elevation automatic. The logic can vary depending on what you're doing, the terrain, aircraft altitude, etc. but it's more like what we already have with the F-16 and F-18, just tailored for an A/G mission. The JF-17 might be a better picture in terms of functionality. A practical example might be to scan a 30 degree arc at the leftmost scan zone at 4km with a single sweep.

Yes, you can configure the radar to scan a narrow arc repeatedly or once, twice, etc. depending on requirements. Most of the settings are related to existing settings for the TADS as they overlap (FCR selected will use TADS FOV to adjust scan zones, etc.) There's a lot of complexity behind it and the things it can do would make it the most advanced radar in DCS; it's for this reason that I wouldn't blame ED for simply doing a NR/WO version alone (although do note that we should get that version either as a mission option or separate airframe for a variety of reasons). At the basic level, you get a wide 90 degree arc that can be narrowed down and scanned within that 90 degree forward arc. The radar can also be linked with TADS and IHADSS to display what it sees as icons in 3D space.

Counterpoint: AH-64D demonstration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzKYogDjagw Not really. The ASE suite on the AH-64D is faster at alerting to (and responding to) threats than on the older AH-64A. Data linking also makes it far easier to get a picture of the whole field, which includes both what friendly ground units have observed and what other aerial units have observed. Your primary flight instrument will remain IHADSS. As a pilot, your MPDs will be used to cross reference what you IHADSS is telling you, the same as the steam gauges do on the AH-64A. For example, you might set your right MPD up to the engine page while your left MPD is set to the flight page. Or you might put a repeater of the PNVS camera on one MPD and cross reference it with the flight page. It's all entirely up to the crew and their preferences, along with the situation at hand. Most AH-64D functions are on the collective and stick, not the MPD bezel buttons. You won't be messing with the MPDs in critical situations. The CPG's primary purpose is to operate the sensors and weapons, with secondary navigation and communication (note that the AH-64A's EGI/GPS is located in the CPG's right console). The AH-64D allows more task trading between the two crew, so it's possible for the pilot to hand off control to the CPG to do something and vice versa. Presently, the closest analog is the F-14A/B, though it doesn't have the ability for the RIO to fly the aircraft, but much of the tasking in the AH-64 is similar. The only reason the front seat is the CPG rather than the back seat was routing the TADS feed (particularly the DVO) to the back seat would've been unnecessarily complicated.

As a point of reference, the AGM-114L does not require the FCR to operate. It's basically an INS-ARH missile to put it plainly; tell it the general nature of the target and the approximate position to go and it will try and match the signature of what you told it to find. The FCR just makes it easier to find and prioritize targets; without it you would just use the TADS (or another data source entered into the systems) to tell the missile where to go and what target to look for. The FCR itself is a complicated little gizmo so it's hard to narrow down everything about it. I'd personally just keep it basic with A/A, GMT, and terrain modes, but I realize such a solution might not be palatable to all parties involved.

Yes, the disco ball (ALQ-144) was considered the primary means of defeating IR guided missiles. Effectiveness of this IR jammer is suspect against modern IR threats, which is why you see gradual removal of it over the years. As noted, it's not that they couldn't, but that they didn't need to until the past 20 years proved the necessity of it. By that point having a MLWS was also in the cards so flare buckets were just thrown in with the CMWS upgrade.

CMWS didn't start getting common until post 2008 and it wasn't until 2010 that the majority of the fleet had the system. TXARNG AH-64As were upgraded with the system until they were retired in '12. So, the old single chaff bucket at the port side of the tailboom actually had a setting for flares, with an associated selector in the AH-64A's cockpit to set the bucket for them. The AH-64D carried this over, so on a pure technical basis it would be possible to carry flares... However, in practice this never occurred and flare usage was relegated to the introduction of two dedicated flare buckets at the base of the tail with CMWS. I would also like to point out that it's not a certainty that a 2002 year AH-64D is what we are getting as the teaser has the M-PNVS assembly, which was not common until 2010. M-TADS was also slowly rolled out during this period, so you'll see from 2007-2011 a mix of aircraft that are essentially Block I standard to Block II.