not planned or correct for version APKWS laser guided rockets for AH-64D

[CrashMcGhee]

This wasn't an AH-64D weapons system in 2002, it was first deployed on the type in 2015, so it won't appear in the 2002 declassified manual. However, it is public knowledge that this aircraft can carry and guide APKWS rockets at this time, and the weapon side of the system is already modeled in DCS, so my question is, will it be added in development at some point, or is this being treated as an AH-64E capability that came after the type to be simulated was in service?

 

I think this is the type of weapon that'd be deployed frequently, and the tens of thousands produced in a short amount of time suggests that it is. 

 

There's also an argument that the weapon type should be available on the F-18C and F-16C, as the USMC used the weapon from F-18s in 2019, and the USAF added the type in 2016 to both the A-10 and F-16. Basically, for a number of high fidelity modules it is a genuine recent addition, and would be beneficial to the CAS role, particularly in lower intensity, urban scenarios.  

 

The fact that this helicopter can be simulated at all at this time is pretty incredible, the aircraft has had such a long service life because the airframe was already adequate, and it's really only needed weapons and systems upgrade to remain relevant over the years. I may be asking for a very recent addition to it's arsenal, but given how DCS is, it'd also be cool to have access to older weapons as well to at least be era accurate for cold war scenarios.

[Tippis]

It's not all that Franken or Time machine when the whole point of the system is that you can take your [whatever age] aircraft and have them fire the thing with no modification other than in the rockets themselves as long as they were able to use Hydras to begin with. One of its main selling features is that it is inherently frankentime:y by design.

[BIGNEWY]

we have no plans currently for APKWS on the DCS AH-64D 

 

Thanks

[Tippis]

4 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Which is simply wrong.

 

To calculate release points (CCIP, CCRP or whatever means), the computer needs to know the aerodynamic properties of the ordinance in question in form of certain key values.

…and again, the whole point of the system is that it's a drop-in replacement that doesn't particularly need that because it's just the same old rocket — whatever difference there is in the final impact point is nullified by the fact that it's a guided rocket. You're not aiming with the computed release cues so much as with the onboard or external lasing cues — that's where the accuracy needs to exist. The rocket itself sits right next to horse shoes and hand grenades as far as how it handles “close enough”.

 

Quote

These don't magically get in there but must be delivered via a software update. No software update, no APKWS. And to update a computer in 2002 with 2010+ data, you quite obviously need a time machine.

Not really no. You just need to wait for that 2002 computer to go past 2010 and then update it if an update is even needed, and it isn't. That's not really a time machine — that's just time, the regular kind.

Edited April 18, 2021 by Tippis

[Tippis]

28 minutes ago, Desert Fox said:

Contrary to gamer beliefs, APKWS are not simply shot from the hip and laser guidance somehow does the job...

It's more BAE belief, tbh.

Again, it's the main selling point of the system: that what's already in the platform will be good enough. You're still not shooting from the hip — I have no idea where you got that idea from.

 

As for simulating certain models, what changes have been made to a 2002-built 64D in the decade after it rolled out the factory? It's not really a different timeframe (otherwise, aside from the WWII and Korea birds, nothing in is within the same timeframe anyway so the game wouldn't be able to simulate any actual conflict to begin with).

[DaemonPhobos]

En 18/4/2021 a las 12:56, Tippis dijo:

It's more BAE belief, tbh.

Again, it's the main selling point of the system: that what's already in the platform will be good enough. You're still not shooting from the hip — I have no idea where you got that idea from.

 

As for simulating certain models, what changes have been made to a 2002-built 64D in the decade after it rolled out the factory? It's not really a different timeframe (otherwise, aside from the WWII and Korea birds, nothing in is within the same timeframe anyway so the game wouldn't be able to simulate any actual conflict to begin with).

 

Sadly, as much as I'd love to have APKWS, there has been a lot of changes from the publicly available manual up to a decade later.

While not that many new systems were integrated into the aircraft, like CMWS, SATCOM, a new transponder, etc,The WPN, ASE, RPT (now MAIL), COM, TSD, VIDEO pages had some modifications, and that's just to name some of them.

it would be a mix between an older software and a new weapon.

I don't think ED is going to be OK with this.

 

[Rogue Trooper]

On 4/17/2021 at 11:56 PM, CrashMcGhee said:

This wasn't an AH-64D weapons system in 2002, it was first deployed on the type in 2015, so it won't appear in the 2002 declassified manual. However, it is public knowledge that this aircraft can carry and guide APKWS rockets at this time, and the weapon side of the system is already modeled in DCS, so my question is, will it be added in development at some point, or is this being treated as an AH-64E capability that came after the type to be simulated was in service?

 

I think this is the type of weapon that'd be deployed frequently, and the tens of thousands produced in a short amount of time suggests that it is. 

 

There's also an argument that the weapon type should be available on the F-18C and F-16C, as the USMC used the weapon from F-18s in 2019, and the USAF added the type in 2016 to both the A-10 and F-16. Basically, for a number of high fidelity modules it is a genuine recent addition, and would be beneficial to the CAS role, particularly in lower intensity, urban scenarios.  

 

The fact that this helicopter can be simulated at all at this time is pretty incredible, the aircraft has had such a long service life because the airframe was already adequate, and it's really only needed weapons and systems upgrade to remain relevant over the years. I may be asking for a very recent addition to it's arsenal, but given how DCS is, it'd also be cool to have access to older weapons as well to at least be era accurate for cold war scenarios.

APKWS would work very well for me in my Apache mate!

APKWS is green for go in this fanboys books, the more precision murder death kills I can achieve in a single sortie is just icing on the cake!

[Mad Dog 762]

I'm all for APKWS in the Apache.  Saying we can't have it on the AH-64D is like saying you can't have it on the A-10C because they were built in the 1980's.  If ED doesn't include them, hopefully a modder figures out how to add them.

[Kev2go]

On 4/18/2021 at 5:58 AM, Desert Fox said:

 

Which is simply wrong.

 

To calculate release points (CCIP, CCRP or whatever means), the computer needs to know the aerodynamic properties of the ordinance in question in form of certain key values.

These don't magically get in there but must be delivered via a software update. No software update, no APKWS. And to update a computer in 2002 with 2010+ data, you quite obviously need a time machine.

 

I know there next will be a wall of "what if"s and made up stories coming in by the usual suspects to somehow work around that fact as always. But that won't change the fact APKWS (2010+) on the Apache we get (2002) would indeed be a FrankenTime machine.

 

ED knows as well and this is why they did not put that in in the first place. EOD.

 

 

We are already getting a post 2002 Ah64D block 2 in spite of what ED said initially.

 

 

Note the cockpit screenshots and the new listed features.

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2021-02-26/

 

 

  MPNVS/MTADS, is being added, which was not not being fielded until 2005 at the earliest ( even then it wasn't common until a a few years later) . We may as well already have at least a 2008-2010ish Apache given we are also getting CMWS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although not verified in planned features,  nor  dohave Gunner seat screenshots just yet, I would however bet we are likely to get the TEDAC display rather than the ORT display given the MPNVS/MTADS, and given the timeframe of when CMWS was coming into place.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Kev2go

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, Mad Dog 762 said:

I'm all for APKWS in the Apache.  Saying we can't have it on the AH-64D is like saying you can't have it on the A-10C because they were built in the 1980's.

 

What? The A-10C with APKWS is supposed to represent (IIRC) a 2017 A-10C, where APKWS is accurate. The older A-10C we have is more representative of a 2005 A-10C, which is why it doesn't have APKWS.

 

It is not accurate for our AH-64D as it is supposed to represent one as it was in 2002, which predates APKWS by a decade. And even if some of our features are from 2005/2008/2010 going by what Kev2go stated above, that still predates APKWS.

[Tippis]

…but if that's the guiding principle, then why add the AH-64D at all? It could only ever be used on the NTTR map since that's the only place of the ones available that you'd be able to see said 2002 Apache, after all.

[joelsi]

btw it was never a 2002 Apache. The original "based on a publicly available 2002 manual" statement morphed into "2002 Apache" which in this case doesn't mean the same thing. The manual mentioned was originally published in 2002 but it has received changes after that. For example everything related to block 2 software was added in 2003 (this was the point when I realized that it wasn't going to be a 2002 Apache). The latest change (change number 5) in that manual was made in the summer of 2005. So what we are getting in DCS is software from summer 2005. In addition to this Chizh wrote this on the Russian forums:

On 2/28/2021 at 3:08 PM, Chizh said:

Мы по моему уже отошли от 2002 года. По докам где-то 2007.

I'm pretty sure that the year 2007 in that mainly refers to CMWS which became a thing roughly in 2007. Other than CMWS I don't think we'll be getting any other new features from that year.

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Tippis said:

…but if that's the guiding principle, then why add the AH-64D at all? It could only ever be used on the NTTR map since that's the only place of the ones available that you'd be able to see said 2002 Apache, after all.

 

It really doesn't matter what map, or skin or time or whatever scenario you put it into - it's still a US Army AH-64D Block II circa 2002. You can approximate whichever variant you like, but and the end of the day it's still that variant.

 

IMO it's much better to just pick an aircraft variant (I really don't care which) and stick to it, and we shouldn't be fudging together different variants from different timeframes.

 

Yes, we can discuss to death where DCS is inconsistent, or what it doesn't get right, but DCS is pretty clear in that the building blocks available (at least) should be as realistic as possible (where feasible to do so), but DCS is a sandbox in that the scenarios you make are completely up to you. I personally think that's the best option by far and doing otherwise would mandate deletion of the mission editor, which sounds like a great idea (not).

 

And yes Tippis, DCS assets and maps are all over the place and personally it would be much better if ED picked a decade (really don't care which so long as it's doable) and made assets and map that fit with it, get it flushed out and then move on, it's part of a wider problem discussed here.

 

But even given that, it really doesn't take anything away from the above, even if it's inconsistent. The solution should be to make maps and assets that are consistent, not make the aircraft less consistent.

 

1 hour ago, joelsi said:

btw it was never a 2002 Apache. The original "based on a publicly available 2002 manual" statement morphed into "2002 Apache" which in this case doesn't mean the same thing. The manual mentioned was originally published in 2002 but it has received changes after that. For example everything related to block 2 software was added in 2003 (this was the point when I realized that it wasn't going to be a 2002 Apache). The latest change (change number 5) in that manual was made in the summer of 2005. So what we are getting in DCS is software from summer 2005. 

 

I'm pretty sure that the year 2007 in that mainly refers to CMWS which became a thing roughly in 2007. Other than CMWS I don't think we'll be getting any other new features from that year.

 

Sounds like ED need to sort out what variant it's actually going to be. But even if it is a 2003, 2005 or 2007 variant, in practice it doesn't matter with regard to APKWS because all of them predate it.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

 

On 4/18/2021 at 6:21 PM, Desert Fox said:

Contrary to gamer beliefs, APKWS are not simply shot from the hip and laser guidance somehow does the job... you've got to stay within certain parameters and CCIP/CCRP are there for a reason.

 

Tell how does the APKWS II know where the target is?

How does the pilot know where the target is?

What you actually need from the CCIP/CCRP for the APKWS II to utilize it?

 

Quote

It also isn't just the same old rocket...

 

Tell how has the rocket changed to new one as it is not the "same old rocket".

 

Quote

you guys also don't get the concept of simulating a certain model in a certain time frame...

 

So.... You never fly in Hornet with the Vipers, or with Eagles, or with Flankers, or with Fulcrums?

 

[Tippis]

21 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

It really doesn't matter what map, or skin or time or whatever scenario you put it into - it's still a US Army AH-64D Block II circa 2002. You can approximate whichever variant you like, but and the end of the day it's still that variant.

The point is, this whole focus on a specific version or a specific, very narrow batch is inherently wrong-headed. If we are only ever going to say that exactly this, that, or the other version is what is being simulated, then the consequence is that they are all useless because those versions were never used in the periods represented by the terrains, or by the other modules, or by… well… anything in the game.

 

Ok, so we have some 2002–to-maybe-2007-who-knows variant of the Apache. What should it be fielding when I stick it into a mission set in 2022, in a fictional conflict in the Caucasus? What other planes should it fly next to? What should the opposition be? If it is exactly that version, then why on earth is it even around in 2021? And why are all these non-existing or no-longer-existing planes and helos flying around for the allied and opposing forces? Alternatively, if we change the fiction of the conflict to match the year, why are all the airports wrong? And (still) all the allied and opposing aircraft?

 

…and the less is said about the Channel map with this in mind, the better, but that horse has been beaten to a pulp elsewhere.

 

21 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Yes, we can discuss to death where DCS is inconsistent, or what it doesn't get right, but DCS is pretty clear in that the building blocks available (at least) should be as realistic as possible (where feasible to do so), but DCS is a sandbox in that the scenarios you make are completely up to you.

Exactly. The game is inherently inconsistent, and the scenarios must be up to the mission-maker to set up the sandbox the way they like it. But that means that to be as realistic as possible, these platforms should actually have store options that they didn't necessarily have originally when they came out.

 

The game already has a “restrict by year” function, so why not let that do the heavy lifting here (if the mission-maker so desires), and add in systems that are in fact in use on the platform even if they wouldn't have been done so the second it rolled off the factory floor — especially when, as in this particular case, there is pretty much zero guesswork involved, and no additional effort since all the systems are already in the game.

 

If I'm reading you right, your position is “ED should be more strict and consistent about what versions they introduce”.

My position is that ED cannot be strict or consistent because they can't pick and choose the sources to match, so let's just embrace that. Especially when there's no cost and no loss of realism and no real guesswork. And above all (although that's less the issue here, but it keeps popping up in other instances), don't enshrine doctrine as if it was the same thing as capability. It's pretty much the same issue, just with a differently weak rationalisation: a decision to not include something that a platform is clearly capable of, just because the original user generally didn't make use of that capability.

 

[Northstar98]

Brace yourselves it's a long one.

 

10 hours ago, Tippis said:

The point is, this whole focus on a specific version or a specific, very narrow batch is inherently wrong-headed.

 

I disagree, it's good for limiting the scope and for defining clear goals. I just think if you're going to advertise something specific, it should be whatever specific thing it's advertised as being, where feasible.

 

Quote

If we are only ever going to say that exactly this, that, or the other version is what is being simulated, then the consequence is that they are all useless because those versions were never used in the periods represented by the terrains, or by the other modules, or by… well… anything in the game.

 

And that is exactly why IMO we should stick to a decade (don't care which), get it flushed out with modules, assets and maps (where feasible to do so) and then move onto the next. Unfortunately in DCS, the only era where this has happened is WWII, it's not perfect, but it's a lot more consistent and a lot more flushed out than basically any other era in DCS.

 

If we've got a problem with the consistency, the solution should be to fix that inconsistency, not further facilitate it. I definitely do not agree with "well x is inconsistent, so the module should be as well". 

 

Quote

Ok, so we have some 2002–to-maybe-2007-who-knows variant of the Apache. What should it be fielding when I stick it into a mission set in 2022, in a fictional conflict in the Caucasus?

 

If it's a 2002 or whatever year it is, then whatever store is realistic for that variant.

 

Quote

What other planes should it fly next to? What should the opposition be?

 

All completely up to you, the scenario is yours to build however you want it.

 

Quote

If it is exactly that version, then why on earth is it even around in 2021? And why are all these non-existing or no-longer-existing planes and helos flying around for the allied and opposing forces?

 

Because the scenario you build, which you yourself said was fictional, is completely up to you.

 

You can take a JF-17 vs an F/A-18C in a mission on the Channel Map set in 1900 (before the Wright Flyer first flew) for all I care, or you could take the WWII warbirds up against each other over Syria, in a mission set in the year 2100. It's all completely up to you.

 

And without historical mode, or a historical/alternate history focused mission, it's not like the year makes any practical difference whatsoever. 

 

If it were me personally, I wouldn't set up a mission set in 2021... But it's completely up to you, I'm not going to tell you what missions you should or should be allowed to create - as far as I see it, you're free to make whatever mission you want, and you're only bound by the limits of what you can do with the mission editor. That's it.

 

Quote

Alternatively, if we change the fiction of the conflict to match the year, why are all the airports wrong? And (still) all the allied and opposing aircraft?

 

Again, the better solution is to fix the inconsistency, not facilitate even more inconsistency. The last thing DCS needs IMO is less consistency.

 

I would much rather pick say, a decade or era (I don't care which) and flush it out with modules, assets and maps that fit each other at least within a few years. Of course where applicable.

 

Unfortunately, the only place where this has happened is WWII, it's not perfect but it's a heck of a lot better than basically any other.

 

Quote

Exactly. The game is inherently inconsistent, and the scenarios must be up to the mission-maker to set up the sandbox the way they like it.

 

And again, the solution is to address the inconsistencies...

 

And personally, I think having building blocks be as realistic as possible to their RL counterparts, but giving the player free reign in what missions they create, is the best way to go about it.

 

Quote

But that means that to be as realistic as possible, these platforms should actually have store options that they didn't necessarily have originally when they came out.

 

Disagree, sounds very much like a zero-sum.

 

Your basically exchanging realism for a specific aircraft such that a scenario is perhaps more realistic, when again, the scenario is completely up to you. The only problem is we have to work with what we've got and what we've got is largely inconsistent.

 

For me, if you're going to deliver x, what comes out should be an accurate representation of x where possible.

 

If x is something specific (operator, variant or time or whatever) it should be accurate for whatever specific thing x is supposed to represent.

 

In this case, if ED are supposed to be delivering a US Army AH-64D Block II circa 2002 (or whatever), then why should they deliver anything but a US Army AH-64D Block II circa 2002? Do you see my logic here?

 

Quote

The game already has a “restrict by year” function, so why not let that do the heavy lifting here (if the mission-maker so desires), and add in systems that are in fact in use on the platform even if they wouldn't have been done so the second it rolled off the factory floor — especially when, as in this particular case, there is pretty much zero guesswork involved, and no additional effort since all the systems are already in the game.

 

Because it is inconsistent with the variant being delivered.

 

And before anybody accuses me of just having a hatred of APKWS, I don't care which specific variant it is, I have my personal preferences sure, but all I'm after is if a developer is planning on delivering x, they should deliver x.

 

It's nitpicky sure, but it is in keeping with DCS' own goals, as stated on their own home page:

 

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

 

And an authentic and realistic representation of a US Army AH-64D Block II circa 200-and whatever, doesn't have APKWS.

 

Quote

If I'm reading you right, your position is “ED should be more strict and consistent about what versions they introduce”.

 

I mean, basically. I think DCS suffers from a lack of consistency and you've already highlighted that one for me. If they're going to advertise their product as being as realistic as possible, and then advertise a specific variant, then it should be that specific variant, as realistic as possible. 

 

Quote

My position is that ED cannot be strict or consistent because they can't pick and choose the sources to match, so let's just embrace that.

 

Sounds like a bit of a cop-out...

 

I'm going to end up saying this in my sleep at this rate, but again, the better solution is in the future, pick modules, assets and maps that fit nicely together, where possible.

 

It has already caused an issue for peer-to-peer missions against contemporaries as a whole, and it is a wider issue discussed in the thread I linked above (here it is again).

 

If it isn't possible fine, though I will say that IMO I think it's unreasonable and maybe not even necessary to expect things being consistent on a year by year basis, there are maybe there are a few places where it could work (WWII for instance). If it's in the same decade I can live with that, though the closer the better.

 

Obviously this depends on specific stuff in particular, but that's my overall goal here. 

 

Quote

Especially when there's no cost and no loss of realism and no real guesswork. And above all (although that's less the issue here, but it keeps popping up in other instances), don't enshrine doctrine as if it was the same thing as capability. It's pretty much the same issue, just with a differently weak rationalisation: a decision to not include something that a platform is clearly capable of, just because the original user generally didn't make use of that capability.

 

Not really sure why you're bringing that up, it doesn't apply here at all.

 

But if it's an operator specific aircraft, they should stick to whatever said operator specific aircraft is capable of. Only you might find that doctrine influences said capability.

 

For instance the LAU-88 is solely an operational issue, AFAIK a USAF/ANG F-16CM Block 50 circa 2007 is capable of equipping the LAU-88, they just don't, even if the LAU-88 is in the inventory.

 

The HARM on stations 4 and 6 however, is a capability issue, AFAIK, those pylons aren't wired for HARMs, so they physically can't be employed from those stations. Same for the Harpoon, while the aircraft of other countries have adapters that allow for it to carry the Harpoon, that adapter is not present on USAF/ANG aircraft, so it doesn't have it available.

 

Now, if it's supposed to be a specific operator or supposed to represent an aircraft as it was at a particular time, then by all means, go for it. But if it is advertised as something specific, then in keeping with the DCS goals, it should authentically represent whatever specific thing it's advertised as being, where it's feasible to do so.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

TLDR - I disagree.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[DaemonPhobos]

Well, according to a real life 64D pilot's commentary I read somewhere, there is no specific symbology for APKWS engagements, nor the software has any constraint limits.

Also according to flashcards you load them as 6PD or 7PD and no more than 16 per pod for maximum weight restrictions.

However, there was multiple modifications to the MPD software and pages from a 2015 to even a 2007 apache.

So having it implemented would inevitably be somewhat unrealistic.

The same logic would apply to the current A-10C.

I don't know what to think about it.

APKWS should work with even IOC AH-64D block 1 in theory.

The problem is it would be anachronistic.

[Tippis]

20 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

APKWS should work with even IOC AH-64D block 1 in theory.

The problem is it would be anachronistic.

That's not really a problem though — everything in DCS is anachronistic because nothing ever fits with anything else, and no scenarios are (or can be, fundamentally) set up for the “correct” timeframe of any aircraft in the game. Some of the WWII birds are close enough to make it plausible, but even then only on the Normandy map, and only  if you make sure that there are pretty much no German planes… which kind of defeats the point.

 

And yes, APKWS should in theory work with anything that can load regular Hydra 70s since that is the whole point of the system, after all. If anything, the Hog2 is probably the unrealistic one in this regard since it does have a special listing in the system, but that's about on par with how all its laser-guided weapons are done incorrectly. Might as well do this one the wrong way as well to keep it consistent…

[Fri13]

Quote

Well, according to a real life 64D pilot's commentary I read somewhere, there is no specific symbology for APKWS engagements, nor the software has any constraint limits.

Also according to flashcards you load them as 6PD or 7PD and no more than 16 per pod for maximum weight restrictions.

However, there was multiple modifications to the MPD software and pages from a 2015 to even a 2007 apache.

 

Of course you are going to load them as 6PD if you use those warheads in them that belongs to the category (M151, M229 or M274).

 

31 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

I don't know what to think about it.

APKWS should work with even IOC AH-64D block 1 in theory.

The problem is it would be anachronistic.

 

There is no connection between the rocket and the pod, and to pod to FCS for what guidance there is.

The Helicopters use more often pods that has umbilical cable from the warhead. The pilot can set example a proximity fuze or delay fuze values for the warhead so it will explode at proper altitude from the target. But nothing is coming from the pod to the rocket itself than just a electronic pin to ignite the rocket motor fuel.

If you can load a Hydra 70 rocket to pod, you can load a APKWS II version from it.

The problem with the short pod is that if you want to add a warhead that has that umbilical cable, then you need to have a extended pod so you can connect the short cables to front of the pod, and of course added drag if you have longer rocket heads extending out. But for example the standard navy pods it is not required as warheads used there are without that. The warheads will withstand the launched rocket motors plume, that was one of the benefits of the APKWS II compared to others that the laser guided seeker module is protected inside the pod and the seekers are protected inside the guidance module so there is no dirt, heat, smoke etc blocking them.

 

https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=48934

Pub/Form Date

05/08/1981

 

 

 

 

The FCS has no information coming from the pods that how many rockets are left, what tubes was fired or is it in what mode (R or S). 

The reason why APKWS II is not used in the old legacy military vehicles is that if they are not in service anymore, then they are not used and you do not load APKWS II on vehicles that are not in service.

If someone would pull a UH-1B from the museum like this, then they could load it with APKWS II and use them as guided rockets as long someone is painting the target for them. 

 

 

But no one is flying UH-1B in combat anymore in 2016+ so it is not used on it.

The US Navy has retired the F/A-18C from service already, but it was in operations with the APKWS II as is.

Basically anything that has been in service is wanted to go for validate for APKWS II use. But no one is going to downgrade any in-service vehicle just to proof the point that APKWS II is compatible and usable with them as is. 

 

The problem really is coordination that you get someone else designate target with laser if you can't do it yourself. Otherwise you are just firing a unguided APKWS II wasting its guidance module. 

 

There is nothing to be done for the hardware or the software in the aircraft or the pod to make APKWS II functional and usable as designed.

Laser code is set in the guidance module itself and activate it there as well.

The proper launch sequence is made in the pod.

The correct order of the warheads and their setting is done with the selecting warhead and placing it in proper tube.

 All the systems believe that rockets are unguided ones and it doesn't matter as the guidance module activates only after launch when spring loaded wings is swept open, roll stabilize the rocket from rotating flight and then four seeker 40 degree Instant Field Of View will detect the proper laser code spot and start turning rocket toward it so the rocket is flying straight to it. 

 

All the other systems requires software changes or compatibilities. Like some guided rockets pretends to be a Hellfire missile, and they require a Hellfire FCS and there is a wired connection to the seeker for Lock On Before Launch (or in upgraded pods and rockets a wireless connection). 

The APKWS II was wanted to be made as cheap and simple as possible. Convert the rocket by attaching guidance module between warhead and rocket motor, set proper laser code, turn On and you are done. Just remind pilot that target needs to be laser designated to rockets guide at it. Otherwise same basic rules as any Hydra 70 rocket applies except you have to launch rocket +/- 20 degree from the target.  

[Fri13]

On 4/18/2021 at 6:21 PM, Desert Fox said:

Contrary to gamer beliefs, APKWS are not simply shot from the hip and laser guidance somehow does the job... you've got to stay within certain parameters and CCIP/CCRP are there for a reason. It also isn't just the same old rocket... you guys also don't get the concept of simulating a certain model in a certain time frame...

 

Can you please explain this video, where did I need the CCIP (or CCRP)?

 

 

Spoiler

 

In that mission I have no information where the JTAC is lazing the target. I am literally just launching the APKWS on the generic idea as I do know generally a 5x2 km area where I placed the units in the map editor and spawning in random locations inside that. 

 

All that I did as launch the rockets, track their flight and see where they started heading and see the impacts. When the JTAC calls first SHIFT, I see that last rockets started to guide from last target to new target direction but didn't reach the target as turn was too tight and they impacted the ground. But that gave me nice line of fire heading where to expect next target to be. I didn't spot any targets in that direction but made a guess for generic location being the big forest.

 

The second attack run I am assuming that next targets are going to be in the big forest and I launch rockets in that direction. I am surprised that the rockets didn't go in that forest direction but steered far further and to right back to the first target position.

And there the JTAC painted target was, just a few hundred meters from the first target. 

 

All that I did, contrary to your claims, was that I simply shot from the hip, because the JTAC laser guidance did the job.

I didn't need to care anything about CCIP (or your CCRP, as rockets do not get that... btw) as all that I needed to know was a very large generic area where to launch as I knew that the rockets would hit the target anywhere inside that 5x2 km area.

 

Now, someone can argue that rockets requires extremely accurately calculated CCIP pipper to get the laser guided rocket on its target.... 

As that CCIP pipper must be then pointing like 10 km to wrong direction to be misleading... And the APKWS II ballistic trajectory without guidance is very close to unguided one... 

 

But that idea of CCIP requirements ignores everything that makes APKWS II so amazing guided rocket.... As if pilot can't even launch the rocket < 20 degrees from the known target direction... He is to resign... 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Fri13

[shagrat]

5 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Can you please explain this video, where did I need the CCIP (or CCRP)?

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

In that mission I have no information where the JTAC is lazing the target. I am literally just launching the APKWS on the generic idea as I do know generally a 5x2 km area where I placed the units in the map editor and spawning in random locations inside that. 

 

All that I did as launch the rockets, track their flight and see where they started heading and see the impacts. When the JTAC calls first SHIFT, I see that last rockets started to guide from last target to new target direction but didn't reach the target as turn was too tight and they impacted the ground. But that gave me nice line of fire heading where to expect next target to be. I didn't spot any targets in that direction but made a guess for generic location being the big forest.

 

The second attack run I am assuming that next targets are going to be in the big forest and I launch rockets in that direction. I am surprised that the rockets didn't go in that forest direction but steered far further and to right back to the first target position.

And there the JTAC painted target was, just a few hundred meters from the first target. 

 

All that I did, contrary to your claims, was that I simply shot from the hip, because the JTAC laser guidance did the job.

I didn't need to care anything about CCIP (or your CCRP, as rockets do not get that... btw) as all that I needed to know was a very large generic area where to launch as I knew that the rockets would hit the target anywhere inside that 5x2 km area.

 

Now, someone can argue that rockets requires extremely accurately calculated CCIP pipper to get the laser guided rocket on its target.... But that ignores everything that makes APKWS II so amazing guided rocket....

 

That's a game! In real life EVERY laser designation has a lot of parameters to follow to ensure a good spot of the reflected laser energy. From angle/cone, the safety of the designator, if not lasing yourself, etc.

In DCS it is pretty easy as the laser spot is always nicely reflected (no scattering), angle doesn't matter and you can't accidentally track the designator's end of the laser beam...

In real life you would have had an interesting talk with some higher ups after that stunt... In a game that is of no consequence.

[Kev2go]

10 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

What? The A-10C with APKWS is supposed to represent (IIRC) a 2017 A-10C, where APKWS is accurate. The older A-10C we have is more representative of a 2005 A-10C, which is why it doesn't have APKWS.

 

It is not accurate for our AH-64D as it is supposed to represent one as it was in 2002, which predates APKWS by a decade. And even if some of our features are from 2005/2008/2010 going by what Kev2go stated above, that still predates APKWS.

 

 

thats irrelevant minus minor nuances in software suite. TBH even  Snoopy ( who maintains A10C) said that A10C II is a hybrid of various software suites, and not a single specific suite  of an exact year. If it wasn't for APKWS or GBu54, our A10C II would be mostly representative of software Suite 7B ( circa 2013 when the Scorpion HMD was integrated) however even then its still lacking some suite features  such as a software page pertaining to CSAR of that particular suite to name one.

 

Or take the circa 2007 F16C which would have been tape 4.2 or 4.3 is now getting AGM154, and ARC210 radios which  apparently are tape 5.1 features ( however there are other 5.1 features that aren't getting implemented) . So even our viper is now something of a hybrid. 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Kev2go

[Northstar98]

18 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Can you please explain this video, where did I need the CCIP (or CCRP)?

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

In that mission I have no information where the JTAC is lazing the target. I am literally just launching the APKWS on the generic idea as I do know generally a 5x2 km area where I placed the units in the map editor and spawning in random locations inside that. 

 

All that I did as launch the rockets, track their flight and see where they started heading and see the impacts. When the JTAC calls first SHIFT, I see that last rockets started to guide from last target to new target direction but didn't reach the target as turn was too tight and they impacted the ground. But that gave me nice line of fire heading where to expect next target to be. I didn't spot any targets in that direction but made a guess for generic location being the big forest.

 

The second attack run I am assuming that next targets are going to be in the big forest and I launch rockets in that direction. I am surprised that the rockets didn't go in that forest direction but steered far further and to right back to the first target position.

And there the JTAC painted target was, just a few hundred meters from the first target. 

 

All that I did, contrary to your claims, was that I simply shot from the hip, because the JTAC laser guidance did the job.

I didn't need to care anything about CCIP (or your CCRP, as rockets do not get that... btw) as all that I needed to know was a very large generic area where to launch as I knew that the rockets would hit the target anywhere inside that 5x2 km area.

 

Now, someone can argue that rockets requires extremely accurately calculated CCIP pipper to get the laser guided rocket on its target.... 

As that CCIP pipper must be then pointing like 10 km to wrong direction to be misleading... And the APKWS II ballistic trajectory without guidance is very close to unguided one... 

 

But that idea of CCIP requirements ignores everything that makes APKWS II so amazing guided rocket.... As if pilot can't even launch the rocket < 20 degrees from the known target direction... He is to resign... 

 

How you personally use it is completely irrelevant, the fact of the matter is, the aircraft does have the parameters of APKWS to compute a CCIP release, those parameters didn't get there via magic, they would've come in an update for the aircraft's avionics.

 

And just because it's guided doesn't mean it that the requisite integration for the aircraft's fire-control systems isn't there, just because you can drop a GBU-12 in the Hornet with the HUD and all the MFDs off, doesn't mean that the aircraft doesn't have the parameters there in the fire control system. 

 

It's the same story as the GBU-12 - even though it's guided (and is almost exactly like APKWS for a Mk 82) the overwhelming majority of aircraft we have stil, have the parameters there for CCIP/CCRP delivery.

 

It's even the same story with the Hornet's gun rounds, they're obviously unguided, but the Hornet has a selection for PGU or M50 gun rounds even though both are fully compatible with any M61 gun system. It's there to fully integrate the round, even if you don't technically need it to fire the gun.

 

Whether you can employ it or fire it without that is completely irrelevant, all that matters is how it's integrated on the real aircraft.

 

7 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

thats irrelevant minus minor nuances in software suite. TBH even  Snoopy ( who maintains A10C) said that A10C II is a hybrid of various software suites, and one a single specific one. If it wasnt for APKWS or GBu54, our A10C II would be mostly representative of software Suite 7B ( circa 2013 when the Scorpion HMD was integrated) however evne then its probably lacking some software pertaining to CSAR pages of that particular suite.

 

The point is that the A-10C II (to my knowledge) represents an aircraft with APKWS capability, but if you can link to one of Snoopy's posts, I'd be grateful.   

[Kev2go]

39 minutes ago, shagrat said:

That's a game! In real life EVERY laser designation has a lot of parameters to follow to ensure a good spot of the reflected laser energy. From angle/cone, the safety of the designator, if not lasing yourself, etc.

In DCS it is pretty easy as the laser spot is always nicely reflected (no scattering), angle doesn't matter and you can't accidentally track the designator's end of the laser beam...

In real life you would have had an interesting talk with some higher ups after that stunt... In a game that is of no consequence.

 

I mean he did that video to just prove a point, not that that would be ideal to operate aircraft in that manner . However i dont think "higher ups"  up always know what goes on the cockpit...... or ruin a pilots career over it.

 

Or is this also officially authorized  procedure? Installing videogames onto your aircraft ?

 

 

 

 

 

Or watching a movie?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or what about carrying toilets on aircraft?  

 

 

 

 

 

or alcohol? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Kev2go

[DaemonPhobos]

hace 1 hora, Fri13 dijo:

 

Of course you are going to load them as 6PD if you use those warheads in them that belongs to the category (M151, M229 or M274).

 

 

There is no connection between the rocket and the pod, and to pod to FCS for what guidance there is.

The Helicopters use more often pods that has umbilical cable from the warhead. The pilot can set example a proximity fuze or delay fuze values for the warhead so it will explode at proper altitude from the target. But nothing is coming from the pod to the rocket itself than just a electronic pin to ignite the rocket motor fuel.

If you can load a Hydra 70 rocket to pod, you can load a APKWS II version from it.

The problem with the short pod is that if you want to add a warhead that has that umbilical cable, then you need to have a extended pod so you can connect the short cables to front of the pod, and of course added drag if you have longer rocket heads extending out. But for example the standard navy pods it is not required as warheads used there are without that. The warheads will withstand the launched rocket motors plume, that was one of the benefits of the APKWS II compared to others that the laser guided seeker module is protected inside the pod and the seekers are protected inside the guidance module so there is no dirt, heat, smoke etc blocking them.

 

https://armypubs.army.mil/ProductMaps/PubForm/Details.aspx?PUB_ID=48934

Pub/Form Date

05/08/1981

 

 

 

 

The FCS has no information coming from the pods that how many rockets are left, what tubes was fired or is it in what mode (R or S). 

The reason why APKWS II is not used in the old legacy military vehicles is that if they are not in service anymore, then they are not used and you do not load APKWS II on vehicles that are not in service.

If someone would pull a UH-1B from the museum like this, then they could load it with APKWS II and use them as guided rockets as long someone is painting the target for them. 

 

 

But no one is flying UH-1B in combat anymore in 2016+ so it is not used on it.

The US Navy has retired the F/A-18C from service already, but it was in operations with the APKWS II as is.

Basically anything that has been in service is wanted to go for validate for APKWS II use. But no one is going to downgrade any in-service vehicle just to proof the point that APKWS II is compatible and usable with them as is. 

 

The problem really is coordination that you get someone else designate target with laser if you can't do it yourself. Otherwise you are just firing a unguided APKWS II wasting its guidance module. 

 

There is nothing to be done for the hardware or the software in the aircraft or the pod to make APKWS II functional and usable as designed.

Laser code is set in the guidance module itself and activate it there as well.

The proper launch sequence is made in the pod.

The correct order of the warheads and their setting is done with the selecting warhead and placing it in proper tube.

 All the systems believe that rockets are unguided ones and it doesn't matter as the guidance module activates only after launch when spring loaded wings is swept open, roll stabilize the rocket from rotating flight and then four seeker 40 degree Instant Field Of View will detect the proper laser code spot and start turning rocket toward it so the rocket is flying straight to it. 

 

All the other systems requires software changes or compatibilities. Like some guided rockets pretends to be a Hellfire missile, and they require a Hellfire FCS and there is a wired connection to the seeker for Lock On Before Launch (or in upgraded pods and rockets a wireless connection). 

The APKWS II was wanted to be made as cheap and simple as possible. Convert the rocket by attaching guidance module between warhead and rocket motor, set proper laser code, turn On and you are done. Just remind pilot that target needs to be laser designated to rockets guide at it. Otherwise same basic rules as any Hydra 70 rocket applies except you have to launch rocket +/- 20 degree from the target.  

 

You are pretty much saying the same I did but in more detail.

It's correct, rockets have only Fuzing and firing circuit connections with the M261 launchers.

There are no specific connections to the PIUs or WP1 and 2 that would prohibit it's use, I also mentioned that a pilot told that there is no new symbology for the APKWS (like a LOAL box for example).

The real problem here is that is a weapon that become operational in the aircraft a almost a decade later than our 2005-2007 version.

Some people isn't going to be ok with that.

I'm neither supporting or against APKWS integration.