not planned or correct for version Stinger, Sidewinder or other air-to-air missiles

[1stBEAST]

I asked the question in Discord already but the info there was that more info will pop up later.

so now is later are there infos if we get them to get rid of these pesky ka-50´s nd hind´s?

[Cunctator]

I've only seen images of Japanese AH-64Ds carrying the wingtip mounted Stingers. Obviously not a capability that was necessary for real world conflicts in the last decades, but it would be very nice to have in DCS were things are more balanced.

[1stBEAST]

i mean it is poible to use hellfire or gun but stinger would be nice to have^^

if i´m not mistaken they are able to carry them, but normally they dont do it. you could say the same for couple loadouts of other modules ^^

 

[hotrod525]

IIRC only Israel and Japanese AH64 are "wired" for it, but i might be wrong.

But, i also recall reading somewhere about an AH64 taking down a plane with hellfire, just can't find a source right now...

 

So here we go, on may 24 2001, an israeli AH64D shoot down a Cessna 152 with hellfire, they also take down an iranian *RQ170 copy* in 2018.

Edited January 18, 2021 by hotrod525

[NeedzWD40]

4 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

IIRC only Israel and Japanese AH64 are "wired" for it, but i might be wrong.

 

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.

[BIGNEWY]

Our AH-64D will be based on a US Army 2002 Block II so would not be realistic for our version. 

 

thanks

[1stBEAST]

can we still have them, just to have the choice to use them?

[Tholozor]

That would require a lot of development time and speculation on something unrealistic for the version ED is modeling. There's no mention of ATAS in the 2002 -10, so there's no documentation of the effect on the aircraft's performance in regards to drag or the CG, not to mention there's no documentation on how to utilize the system or how it would appear on the displays.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Tholozor

[1stBEAST]

didnt the japanese apaches had them from the get go?

hm...lets see maybe we get them maybe not^^

as stated earlier would be nice to have.

 

so how did janes got their information in the 90´s for their games? was it just guessing?

[Tholozor]

ED isn't modeling a Japanese Apache. That's a different variant that's built locally through a licensed manufacturer, and not by Boeing.

 

Jane's isn't a fair comparison by any metric to what ED does, that's a massive far cry.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Tholozor

[1stBEAST]

i know that ed does a way deeper simulation. but janes had to come up with the symbology for the ATAS. or have sources how it will/does look.

[NRG-Vampire]

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a213030.pdf - come on guys, it's a 32 years old story. Even the oldest AH-64A variant is able to deploy the Stinger, however US Army did not ordered the A2A "package" for most of their gunships and did not train the crew too (most of them -again).
Only a few "boxes" needed in the airframe and in the "dashboard", a few cable in the wings and some socket on the wingtips: and ready to go for A2A.
BTW: what do you think, why the Nav-light/strobe luminaries were officially removed from the wingtips of the AH-64D ? (..and got brackets for the dual ATAS launcher/pod)
Other addon(s) (tested) "package" were: sidewinders, sidearms and the "big punch" AGM-65 Mavericks but customers "threw" these weapons.

...The same goes by the US AirForce: F-15 Eagle CDIP (continuous(ly) displayed impact point) bombing capability. The only difference is: that's a 50 years old story.

Edited January 19, 2021 by NRG-Vampire

[Raptor9]

I wouldn't use the movie Firebirds as evidence to support any argument. The avionics package in that movie was an early experimental version for the proposed post-Gulf War AH-64B upgrades, that eventually evolved into the D-model. No Alpha-models ever had MPDs. I'm fairly certain it was a marketing plug by McDonnel Douglas and/or the Army for funding for the B-model upgrades.

 

Having said that, regardless of whatever has been tested or proposed, I wouldn't count on them reversing their decision on the ATAS.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Raptor9

[МаксиM]

2 hours ago, NRG-Vampire said:

you sure thats this is 2002 version?

[Raptor9]

It's not. It's not even a production avionics version.

[flybull]

Just throwing my hat in the ring .....I would love ATAS (accurate or not.)

 

As an aside, I have no idea why ED are stating a 2002 model, when their manual incorporates Change 5, 2005.   It just says “2002” on the front cover.  

[9thHunt]

23 minutes ago, flybull said:

Just throwing my hat in the ring .....I would love ATAS (accurate or not.)

 

As an aside, I have no idea why ED are stating a 2002 model, when their manual incorporates Change 5, 2005.   It just says “2002” on the front cover.  

Yeah, I'm all for realism, but seeing as this is a flight sim, and not accurately portraying the real life order of battle on a modern battlefield, we'll likely be facing more air threats then a real world Apache.  ATAS capability would be extremely useful in game.

 

Although, this is not a "drop everything and implement this" feature, I'd be happy with getting a more-or-less complete Apache Longbow first.

[NeedzWD40]

4 hours ago, NRG-Vampire said:

BTW: what do you think, why the Nav-light/strobe luminaries were officially removed from the wingtips of the AH-64D ? (..and got brackets for the dual ATAS launcher/pod)

 

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.

[phantom0gritz]

Just putting it out there that the AGM-114 with laser tracking is perfectly capable of tagging any of the larger helicopters out of the air.  Obviously not with 100% accuracy even without counter measures, I mean it is an AGM.

[kreisch]

@NRG-VampireThe document you linked shows an evaluation - nothing more.

It shows that it might have been a solution but it clearly states a "preliminary" state and it lists some requirements necessary for the usage of the system - This is no proof that the system was used in any helicopter but these 2 prototypes/test beds.

 

Do not get me wrong, I would like to have the possibility to defend myself in the Apache but it is what it is, this system was never used and no Apache can "just receive it".

Read the document, it requires a changed cyclic/collective, a changed Pitot system etc etc.

[flybull]

10 hours ago, kreisch said:

@NRG-VampireThe document you linked shows an evaluation - nothing more.

It shows that it might have been a solution but it clearly states a "preliminary" state and it lists some requirements necessary for the usage of the system - This is no proof that the system was used in any helicopter but these 2 prototypes/test beds.

 

Do not get me wrong, I would like to have the possibility to defend myself in the Apache but it is what it is, this system was never used and no Apache can "just receive it".

Read the document, it requires a changed cyclic/collective, a changed Pitot system etc etc.

Document refers to integration of ATAS onto "A" model birds, there is very little commonality between an "A" model  and a Block II D model.  How about leaving the decision on weather it is technically "do-able" to actual SMEs?.  

 

There are numerous open-source references to FMS customers using ATAS.

 

We all understand it was not done in US ARMY service, and ED may choose not to implement it due to historical accuracy reasons - but your post, is utter rubbish from a technical perspective.

 

If ED has the relevant information - it could be done.

 

Why do people talk so much crap about things they know nothing about?

 

@kreisch et al: wearing your tag "ED Closed Beta Testers Team" does not grant you any credibility.  

 

Any forum user identifying association as part of ED's team  should be held to higher standard in regard to presenting information.

 

Just sayin' 

Edited January 26, 2021 by flybull

[kreisch]

@flybull, I just said that this exact document cannot be used as proof - that's it.

 

Edit: To the point "utter rubbish" - it's not about technical possibilities or not, it's only about "is it realistic for the affected model or not" - and therefore a document is either relevant or irrelevant, like you said 'It does not tell anything about the model we will receive'. If this is the case, do not refer to this document in a discussion, because it does not provide any relevant information.

 

Edit2: Literally 30 seconds using google

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/atas-to-become-a-standard-air-to-air-component-for-apache-ah-64e/

 

I do not understand why BigNewys statement isn't accepted

 

Quote

"Currently, Stinger integration on the Apache D model is conducted on a case-by-case basis for operators, where the missiles are mounted on the stub wingtips through a separate integration package. From 2018, the E model will become the common configuration for all future domestic US and FMS Apache sales, and will include a pylon-mounted Raytheon ATAS integration package as standard."

 

Edited January 27, 2021 by kreisch

[BIGNEWY]

Hi all,

 

like it or not, please be nice to each other.

 

thank you

[Tippis]

So by the sound of it, we're back to that weird choice of not actually simulating the capabilities of an airframe but rather the doctrine of a specific end user?

 

14 hours ago, flybull said:

Document refers to integration of ATAS onto "A" model birds, there is very little commonality between an "A" model  and a Block II D model.  How about leaving the decision on weather it is technically "do-able" to actual SMEs?.

For one, because the SME's simply  might not know what's doable and what isn't. They are likely very familiar with what is done, which is not the same thing as what can be done. If we want simulations of the airframe, the latter is what matters, and the former is left for the mission designer to take into consideration. Confusing doctrine for capability only means you end up with an unrealistic result: you're not simulating the hardware any more, but the wetware that sits five steps removed from it.

[vigilante87]

15 minutes ago, Tippis said:

So by the sound of it, we're back to that weird choice of not actually simulating the capabilities of an airframe but rather the doctrine of a specific end user?

 

For one, because the SME's simply  might not know what's doable and what isn't. They are likely very familiar with what is done, which is not the same thing as what can be done. If we want simulations of the airframe, the latter is what matters, and the former is left for the mission designer to take into consideration. Confusing doctrine for capability only means you end up with an unrealistic result: you're not simulating the hardware any more, but the wetware that sits five steps removed from it.

You must really want those missiles if you are now going after SMEs. lol