AH-64 variant which is meant to be modeled in DCS and differences between A and D gameplay-wise

[bies]

I just finished a book about AH-64 Apache and i can see some really big specific differences between original A variant and later D one.

 

I mean isn't original AH-64A more attractive/entertaining/fun to play than Longbow AH-64D to be modeled in DCS?  Isn't it flying manual systems and steam gauges vs operating automatic flying computer?

 

1) According to it's pilots AH-64A was more maneuverable and powerfull due to smaller mass and higher T/W ratio.
AH-64D is less maneuverable due to increased mass of new avionics, enlarged fairings, especially milimeter radar on the mast.

 

2) AH-64A had more engaging workflow with manually looking for targets using TADS with FLIR, optical device and camera, manually aiming laser guided HELLFIREs, firing many missiles in few second intervals changing the aim right after the hit by skilled operator. And IHADSS was used even in first AH-64 variant.
When in AH-64D radar will find targets automatically, you just select targets on DDI and launch fire-and-forget radar guided HELLFIREs.

 

3) AH-64A had more divided stations with enough interesting tasks for both - pilot flying the chopper and weapon officer manually searching targets, maually aiming missiles. 
With AH-64D glass cockpit i can imagine one guy can make everything, radar will find targets, he will select them on DDI and fire, even use TADS on DDI if needed.

 

4) AH-64A has nicer vibes being cold war tank killer to fight hordes of Soviet armored divisions and it served in Desert Storm destroying some ~300ish tanks and about twice as much other vehicles in full scale war.
When AH-64D was mostly use to kill some close to helpless terorist/insurgencies. IDK if it even had some real possibility to utilise it's radar as in Iraq and Afganistan there was no armored targets.

 

5) AH-64A was meant to cooperate with Bell OH-58 Kiowa helicopters (which is going to be in DCS in next year) showing it's Mast Mounted Sight and guiding Apache hellfires fired in an arc in some LOAL-HI mode over the obstacle.
With AH-64D cooperation would be probably irrelevant since Longbow is autonomous having milimeter radar on it's mast, far more capable than any optical device.

 

6) AH-64A can be modelled faithfully and realistically. 
In case of AH-64D Bignewy said "The radar as you can imagine is classified and will depend on the public information we can get."
Personally i would like to have the variant which can be modelled reasonably realistically regardless of the rest.

 

I mean i know with AH-64D you can destroy more targets more easily but idk if this is going to be as attractive as original AH-64A gameplay wise.

 

When i was watching DCS Kiowa developers streams i felt the most attractive features i (wait) the most is fllying lightweight nimble helicopter, manually looking for targets using MMS with FLIR and optical device, manually aim HELLFIRE missiles etc. Contrary the part i'm waiting for the least (it even scares me a bit) is a need to memorize dozens of procedures what to click on dozens of DDI pages. Isn't that the analogy to AH-64A vs AH-64D?

 

 

 

/// Maybe someone knows really good AH-64D workflows and see in which aspects AH-64D can be more attractive or fun to operate than original AH-64A? ///

 

cheers and hell yeah, it's a fantastic news Apache is going to be in DCS !

Edited December 20, 2020 by bies

[Dragon1-1]

Do note that the laser-guided Hellfires are also available for the AH-64D, and there are compelling reasons to take them. The Longbow radar wasn't used in Afghan, because they were not expecting to engage things that would show up nicely on radar. With the radar removed, the AH-64D will also be much nimbler.

 

Longbow isn't "far more capable than any optical device". In fact, it's markedly inferior to optical and especially IR in many cases. Even disregarding the fact that it makes you easy to spot on fixed wing RWRs, its primary purpose is finding tanks and armored vehicles. Give it a bunker, or an infantry platoon, and it won't be able to help you very much. This also means working with a Kiowa remains a viable option. 

 

I suspect the choice of AH-64D was driven by DCS' single player userbase. It'd make you less reliant on AI (though hopefully it'll still be able to work with it) and offer a wider range of missions.

[bies]

35 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Longbow isn't "far more capable than any optical device". In fact, it's markedly inferior to optical and especially IR in many cases. Even disregarding the fact that it makes you easy to spot on fixed wing RWRs

In speed at wich it can find many targets around the helicopter it is incomparably better than any electrooptical device. It's a game changer.

 

Interesting thing about Longbow APG-78 fire control radar is it works in Ka band millimeter wave - it has low range of about ~8-12km but it's radiation is possible to detect also only at very short range. Far shorter than practically usable by enemy fighters, it's a lot easier to detect Apache rotor using fighter's radar then trying to intercept Apache radar radiation on RWR, especially from high above.

 

Anyway, the amount of data about the details of this radar is really low and that's a bit scarry.

 

Thanks for insights about single player userbase.

Edited December 20, 2020 by bies

[TotenDead]

12 minutes ago, bies said:

In speed at wich it can find many targets around the helicopter it is incomparably better than any electrooptical device. It's a game changer.

 

Interesting thing about Longbow APG-78 fire control radar is it works in Ka band millimeter wave - it has low range of about ~8-12km but it's radiation is possible to detect also only at very short range. Far shorter than practically usable by enemy fighters, it's a lot easier to detect Apache rotor using fighter's radar then trying to intercept Apache radar radiation on RWR, especially from high above.

 

 

If the fighter is not scanning in the direction of the apache it won't see it, but will pick its radar signal. Do not forget that RWR are capable of detecting really weak signals and while it might detect apache radar way closer then usual fighter ones it will still be a few dozen kilometers which is just enough to find a chopper.

[bies]

20 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

If the fighter is not scanning in the direction of the apache it won't see it, but will pick its radar signal. Do not forget that RWR are capable of detecting really weak signals and while it might detect apache radar way closer then usual fighter ones it will still be a few dozen kilometers which is just enough to find a chopper.

This radar doesn't emit signal high to the sky (except for special A-A mode), probability of detection of such high frequency low range emision, directed low, parallel to ground surface is very low when you are up high. Contrary detecting any helicopter (especially it's rotor) using modern fighter radar is relatively easy even from big distance. It would be like trying to find camouflaged snper with naked eye when you have infra red camera available.

 

But i don't want to dispute about such speculative details in this topic. I would like it to stay on main point which is AH-64A vs AH-64D workflow from the PC simer poin of view.

Edited December 20, 2020 by bies

[TotenDead]

Well, you have FLIR, why would you need radar in the game? 

[Dragon1-1]

2 hours ago, bies said:

In speed at wich it can find many targets around the helicopter it is incomparably better than any electrooptical device. It's a game changer.

No, it really isn't, not unless you're mostly facing armored targets. They took them out in Afghan for a reason, indeed, the Longbow radar was designed from the start to be removable, to accommodate situations in which it's nothing but dead weight. Radar is only useful if your target is of a sort that will show up on radar. There are many things outside this category, and certain types of terrain (most notably cities) can also muddle the radar picture to the point of uselessness. For example, it can't tell the difference between "pickup truck" and "pickup truck with a guy aiming a Stinger at you in the back". EO and IR devices can, which is why they were the Apache's primary sensors in Afghan.

 

1 hour ago, bies said:

This radar doesn't emit signal high to the sky (except for special A-A mode), probability of detection of such high frequency low range emision, directed low, parallel to ground surface is very low when you are up high.

If you're helicopter hunting, then you're probably not flying all that high. RWR is a great help when doing that, currently you can catch the Apache's radar at just enough of a range to turn towards it, lock it and take it out. The rotor might be easy to detect once it's in your radar cone, but in most situations, helicopters fly so low they usually end up below it, so the fighter has to constantly fiddle with antenna elevation, and any unexpected maneuvering on part of the helo are rather hard to follow. 

[bies]

Let's not to dispute about such speculative details in this topic. I would like it to stay on main point which is AH-64A vs AH-64D workflow from the PC simer poin of view.

[Northstar98]

Personally I'd stick to the A, and then if the RADAR gets the green light, do a D upgrade in similar fashion to the A-10C upgrade we got.

 

IMO there's not much point (other than glass cockpit, which for me is a trivial matter, I still prefer early MFDs and dials to pure MFDs) to do a D over an A if the main defining feature of the D, the thing that gives it its name, isn't implemented.

 

Plus it'll better fit the vast majority of REDFOR ground vehicles and air defences currently in DCS World a lot better than a post 2000s D.

Edited December 20, 2020 by Northstar98

[Hentai Paisen]

Pretty sure Kate confirmed that our AH-64D should be circa 2002 or so, so pretty much spot on for DCS. Personally I get the appeal of a 64A from an aesthetic standpoint but quite frankly even with the AH-64D I am concerned about how difficult it is gonna be to fly solo. I don't particularly trust ED to give us a capable AI gunner or pilot considering they haven't shown us anything like that before and our only other example in DCS is Jester(who is really pretty awful imo). Even if we don't get the Longbow Radar, which I'm pretty sure we will, it'd be dumb to tease it otherwise, I still think the 64D is a better choice from a solo pilot standpoint. 

[hannibal]

just be grateful for any Ah64 variant that ED chooses. A B C D.... im just happy the Mi24 is coming soon as well

[drover1970]

Hi tell me old fashion but i really fancy and a Cobra  AH-1Z variant.

[MrDieing]

11 hours ago, Hentai Paisen said:

 our only other example in DCS is Jester(who is really pretty awful imo).

I do not want to go off topic but I find this a bit of a harsh statement. HB never claimed that Jester was going to kick ass. He is the first of his kind and very workable if you know how to use him. He is never going to replace a human player, but neither will the AI that ED will develop. We have not reached that kind of AI on this planet yet, which is for the better if you ask me.

 

To get back on topic, I would prefer the -D. For me it can't get modern enough. I would prefer a lot of things happening automatic, not because I am lazy but because I really appreciate the technology behind these kind of systems.

[D4n]

Our D Apache gets the super useful AGM-114L fire-n-forget Hellfire aswell, right? (Would be a main selling point for me.)

[joelsi]

At first I was a bit disappointed that we may not get the radar buuuuut after seeing some comments from SMEs calling the radar "dead weight" as well them telling just how severe the negative flight performance impact is I'm no longer worrying about the radar that much. I'd still love to have the APG-78 but it certainly won't be a deal breaker and if we get it I think it should be a pretty low priority feature, perhaps 1st a non-radar version FM and avionics would be made and at the very end or even after EA ED would make a "radar-FM" and actually add the radar.

 

Now onto other stuff about a 2002 AH-64D
Based on documentation available online our 2002 DCS AH-64D will quite likely be a block 1 but I wouldn't discount the possibility of us getting a block 2.

Overall don't be disappointed if we get block 1 instead of 2, no huge differences between them.

 

Now onto avionics of a ~2002ish AH-64D block 1:

VHF
UHF

and (two?) FM radio sets

 

IDM (Improved Data Modem, think datalink...) Capable of supporting the following protocols:

LONGBOW (newer more and more capable)

TACFIRE (older but compatible with Kiowas)

 

for navigation I think the thing that people are mainly interested in is that yes, the AH-64D has EGI (think GPS...),

only (afaik...) AH-64A block that had an integrated GPS was the latest block 51.

 

AH-64D's "sighting subsystem" has the following systems:

 

IHADSS (the cool helmet sight)
AN/AAQ-11 Pilot Night Vision Sensor (PNVS) (The NVS image is projected on the helmet sight, no need for separate NVGs!)

AN/ASQ-170 Target Acquisition Designation Sight (TADS) (Main FLIR turret on the nose. This is the sensor that you'll use most of the time)

AN/APG-78 Fire Control Radar (FCR)

 

(MTADS, an upgrade to the original TADS with some additional features, SME told me that they were beginning to show up in 2008 so I'd say a veeeery small chance that we'll see this thing in our AH-64D. I'd like to have it though...)

 

AH-64D's defensive systems include:

AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometer (think RWR on steroids, it can do all sorts of cool stuff. It's mounted on the FCR mast assembly so no radar = no RFI)

AN/APR-39A(V)4 RWR
AN/AVR-2A LWR (=Laser Warning System)

 

AN/ALQ-136(V)5 Radar Jammer

AN/ALQ-144A(V)3 Infrared Jammer

M-141 Chaff Dispenser

(Flares? Documentation doesn't really mention flares. We might be limited to the IR jammer but some info from ED/SME regarding flares on the AH-64D would be nice)

 

Armament includes:

Laser guided Hellfires (both older and newer types. I don't really have an idea about their differences)

Radar guided Hellfires (not 100% sure if these require the FCR and if they don't not sure if they have some limitations when used that way)

Hydra 70 rockets

aaand the M230E1 30mm cannon

 

As for cockpit systems the main thing I'm thinking about is the older ORT vs. newer TEDAC in the gunner seat (pics (if they work...) below) :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd prefer to have the newer TEDAC as it would likely be more comfortable to use (and I like how it looks!)

Buuuuut I haven't been able find out when exactly these were added to AH-64Ds and thus if it would fit in a 2002 AH-64D (SME's comment: "...we were flying a mix of ORTs and TEDACS in 2008") (Documentation from 2002 has plenty of info about the TEDAC so I'm pretty confident that ED could do it)

 

But I'll be just fine with the older ORT if ED can make it immersive and not-clunky to use, realistic (no pop up window) and overall a good experience for people using VR sets or regular monitors.

 

I'm sure I made some mistakes and forgot to mention important features/limitations so please correct me if I got something wrong.

 

-Joelsi

Edited December 22, 2020 by joelsi
typos...

[NeedzWD40]

On 12/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, bies said:

1) According to it's pilots AH-64A was more maneuverable and powerfull due to smaller mass and higher T/W ratio.
AH-64D is less maneuverable due to increased mass of new avionics, enlarged fairings, especially milimeter radar on the mast.

 

This is true. AH-64D handles a bit worse than AH-64A. Some of the power was regained with engine upgrades over the years, but that was offset by additional gear added in Block II and later III/E.

 

On 12/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, bies said:

2) AH-64A had more engaging workflow with manually looking for targets using TADS with FLIR, optical device and camera, manually aiming laser guided HELLFIREs, firing many missiles in few second intervals changing the aim right after the hit by skilled operator. And IHADSS was used even in first AH-64 variant.
When in AH-64D radar will find targets automatically, you just select targets on DDI and launch fire-and-forget radar guided HELLFIREs.

 

AH-64D still operates like this when utilizing TADS. The FCR can track vehicles and prioritize them as well as slave the TADS to a target position (or vice versa), but SAL missiles will still need to be lased via the front seat or buddy laser. RF missiles can be launched by the pilot, however. Control of the TADS remains firmly in the hands of the CPG despite this.

 

On 12/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, bies said:

3) AH-64A had more divided stations with enough interesting tasks for both - pilot flying the chopper and weapon officer manually searching targets, maually aiming missiles. 
With AH-64D glass cockpit i can imagine one guy can make everything, radar will find targets, he will select them on DDI and fire, even use TADS on DDI if needed.

 

On a pure technical basis, the CPG in the AH-64A could do everything but start the aircraft and configure rocket zones. In the AH-64D, the CPG can do everything but start the aircraft. The workload for doing so is incredibly high.

 

On 12/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, bies said:

4) AH-64A has nicer vibes being cold war tank killer to fight hordes of Soviet armored divisions and it served in Desert Storm destroying some ~300ish tanks and about twice as much other vehicles in full scale war.
When AH-64D was mostly use to kill some close to helpless terorist/insurgencies. IDK if it even had some real possibility to utilise it's radar as in Iraq and Afganistan there was no armored targets.

 

FCR usage happened early on in OIF on a limited basis, then was removed as soon as the armored threat had diminished. The primary utility of all AH-64s (the A model was not fully retired until 2012) after the initial fighting was primarily an on-call CAS asset. Thus the use of SAL missiles, gun, and TADS primarily. In event of a conflict on more even footing, the AH-64D would be used in a different capacity. Despite this, the D-NR/WO would rely on either a FCR equipped aircraft for target prioritization or the TADS for engagement. RF HELLFIRE does not require the FCR for use.

 

Agreed that on a historical basis, the AH-64A offers many possibilities, but don't mistake the AH-64A into being some kind of lesser, hardcore airframe compared to the D model. The differences are primarily in data linking and sharing.

 

On 12/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, bies said:

5) AH-64A was meant to cooperate with Bell OH-58 Kiowa helicopters (which is going to be in DCS in next year) showing it's Mast Mounted Sight and guiding Apache hellfires fired in an arc in some LOAL-HI mode over the obstacle.
With AH-64D cooperation would be probably irrelevant since Longbow is autonomous having milimeter radar on it's mast, far more capable than any optical device.

 

This did not happen much in reality as the OH-58D was markedly slower than the AH-64A. Cooperation as part of a team will depend heavily upon scenario design and circumstances, whether it is the A model, D model, or working with a Kiowa. The FCR is also not far more capable than any optical device; it has strengths and advantages like any other sensor.

 

On 12/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, bies said:

6) AH-64A can be modelled faithfully and realistically. 
In case of AH-64D Bignewy said "The radar as you can imagine is classified and will depend on the public information we can get."
Personally i would like to have the variant which can be modelled reasonably realistically regardless of the rest.

 

Agreed on this point. The data for a mid 90s-2005 AH-64A is more widespread and easier to implement, with far fewer problems associated with the MPDs and features.

 

On 12/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, bies said:

I mean i know with AH-64D you can destroy more targets more easily but idk if this is going to be as attractive as original AH-64A gameplay wise.

 

When i was watching DCS Kiowa developers streams i felt the most attractive features i (wait) the most is fllying lightweight nimble helicopter, manually looking for targets using MMS with FLIR and optical device, manually aim HELLFIRE missiles etc. Contrary the part i'm waiting for the least (it even scares me a bit) is a need to memorize dozens of procedures what to click on dozens of DDI pages. Isn't that the analogy to AH-64A vs AH-64D?

 

All the pages do is relegate previous functions that had separate controls throughout the cockpit into a paged MPD format. You set the aircraft up for navigation, attack, observation, etc. as mission dictates. They are a tool to make your job easier, but nothing mandates that you use every feature (and most of us likely will not). If you desire to use TADS and SAL missiles as your go-to, then you will operate the same way as you would with an AH-64A, simply ignoring all the data link features (which probably won't be implemented for years down the line).

 

On 12/20/2020 at 12:52 PM, bies said:

/// Maybe someone knows really good AH-64D workflows and see in which aspects AH-64D can be more attractive or fun to operate than original AH-64A? ///

 

The AH-64D addresses shortcomings found with the AH-64A post ODS, in particular the lack of data linking and knowing where friendlies are located as well as what they are doing. The technology leveraged allows it to be more flexible in missions so it can do more than raw attack; ie, spot, relay, and guide artillery. Features greatly vary depending on block and generation as well as timeframe and unit. In essence, the AH-64D is capable of working with a team far more efficiently than an AH-64A, being able to coordinate with ground forces as well as other aerial assets. It will be up to players (and the scenario) whether or not to utilize those capabilities.

[GGTharos]

On 12/20/2020 at 5:21 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

If you're helicopter hunting, then you're probably not flying all that high. RWR is a great help when doing that, currently you can catch the Apache's radar at just enough of a range to turn towards it, lock it and take it out. The rotor might be easy to detect once it's in your radar cone, but in most situations, helicopters fly so low they usually end up below it, so the fighter has to constantly fiddle with antenna elevation, and any unexpected maneuvering on part of the helo are rather hard to follow. 

 

AFAIK the longbow radar operates quite a bit above the frequencies which RWRs are tuned to - most RWRs go up to 20GHz or less, the longbow operates between 27 and 40.  It's characterized as very LPI, so .. if you're sporting some sort of older RWR (like most modules), you're not likely to have a good time picking it up IMHO.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I'm sorry OP but not all of us are airplane boomers.

Some of us enjoy what you might consider a flying iPad.

[Irishlad200000]

Once had the chance to meet a US crew and get a tour, even sat in the gunner seat and moved the cannon around with the hmd! During operation Agricola Kosovan war 99

Sent from my SM-G981B using Tapatalk

[bies]

6 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

I'm sorry OP but not all of us are airplane boomers.

Some of us enjoy what you might consider a flying iPad.

It's not like I have anything against modern planes or system, I'm trying to be objective. Modern plane can be as attractive as older one, or maybe even more in some particular cases, it all depends on it's workflow - if you actually have something engaging to do.

 

It's just the evolution of technology, more and more is done by the computer and less by the pilot, up to the point of gradually getting rid of the pilot itself completely

Edited December 22, 2020 by bies

[bies]

@NeedzWD40 Thanks for such an objective perspective.

[Sandman1330]

@joelsi @NeedzWD40 thanks for the detailed breakdown, that’s awesome!

 

The Apache definitely carries flares. Aside from being an obvious oversight (the IR jammer alone wouldn’t be sufficient), there’s this footage from Baghdad last year:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CJTF-OIR_Crisis_Response_to_Protests_DOD_107565097-5e0cec395974d.webm

[joelsi]

1 hour ago, Sandman1330 said:

The Apache definitely carries flares. Aside from being an obvious oversight (the IR jammer alone wouldn’t be sufficient), there’s this footage from Baghdad last year:

 

US Apaches were upgraded with AN/AAR-57 MAWS at some point after 2002 and afaik that upgrade included extra countermeasures dispensers that are capable of carrying flares so I don't think a clip from late 2019 is a good indication of the DCS variant's ability to carry flares. So far I haven't been able to find conclusive evidence that a US Army AH-64D from 2002 is able to carry and use flares. 

 

Some export customers have also made their own modifications that include flares but US Army Apaches don't have those mods

Edited December 22, 2020 by joelsi

[N8AHbl4]

20 минут назад, joelsi сказал:

US Apaches were upgraded with AN/AAR-57 MAWS at some point after 2002 and afaik that upgrade included extra countermeasures dispensers that are capable of carrying flares so I don't think a clip from late 2019 is a good indication of the DCS variant's ability to carry flares. So far I haven't been able to find conclusive evidence that a US Army AH-64D from 2002 is able to carry and use flares. 

 was modernized in 2005
similar to other US helicopters, flares are paired with MAWS
2002 cannot use flares

Edited December 22, 2020 by N8AHbl4

[NeedzWD40]

3 hours ago, joelsi said:

US Apaches were upgraded with AN/AAR-57 MAWS at some point after 2002

 

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.

 

3 hours ago, joelsi said:

So far I haven't been able to find conclusive evidence that a US Army AH-64D from 2002 is able to carry and use flares. 

 

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.