only k (kilo) and l (lima) variants planned Additional variants of AGM-114 missile

[Bedouin]

Hi,

Would be nice with different variants of the Hellefire, for ex:

AGM-114K/K2/K2A Hellfire II with possibility for K-2 Adds Insensitive Munitions (IM) or K-2A Adds Blast-Frag Sleeve

AGM-114L Hellfire LongBow

AGM-114M Hellfire II (Blast Frag)

Thanks!

[joelsi]

On 12/22/2020 at 7:03 AM, Chizh said:

Будет радарная модификация - AGM-114L

 

On 12/21/2020 at 6:26 PM, Chizh said:

В раннем доступе будет только AGM-114K.

AGM-114K and AGM-114L were mentioned by Chizh on a Russian thread:

DCS: AH-64 Apache - Page 5 - DCS World - ED Forums (eagle.ru)

Edited January 16, 2021 by joelsi

[toilet2000]

Yup, from the russian translation, it seems the -114K will be in early access, -114L afterward.

[phantom0gritz]

On 1/20/2021 at 2:19 PM, toilet2000 said:

Yup, from the russian translation, it seems the -114K will be in early access, -114L afterward.

That is good info because was curious myself.  The K series will be more than enough for early access bug finding.  Especially when trying out the buddy lase and hand offs. It will help when finishing the radar targeting for the L.

[bies]

Do someone know how capable Hellfire is against other helicopter?

 

Is "L" able to guide via radar on air target?

 

How long from i.e enemy tank Hellfire's radar will start looking for the target?

[Northstar98]

Its RADAR band is mmW, my guess is around 1km or less, given that the APG-78 Longbow FCR itself only has a range of 8km. 

Edited January 28, 2021 by Northstar98

[VpR81]

Now i'm a little bit confused... So if we're getting the AGM-114L, we'll also see the Longbow FCR wich i thought was not confirmed yet? Or did i miss something?

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, VpR81 said:

Now i'm a little bit confused... So if we're getting the AGM-114L, we'll also see the Longbow FCR wich i thought was not confirmed yet? Or did i miss something?

 

It's planned (though probably in much the same breath as the Sniper XR was planned for the F-16C, and now it seems to have dropped off of the planned payloads for the whatever'th time).

 

I don't think the AGM-114L needs support from the FCR exclusively, I imagine it can be cued by the EO/IR system, and then uses its mmW active guidance (like a fox 3) to find a target.

 

My question is I wonder how useful active RADAR homing is going to be in a cluttered environment; I wonder how the RADAR manages to pick up stationary ground targets in amongst the clutter.

[Fri13]

On 1/30/2021 at 10:38 AM, Northstar98 said:

I don't think the AGM-114L needs support from the FCR exclusively, I imagine it can be cued by the EO/IR system, and then uses its mmW active guidance (like a fox 3) to find a target.

 

I think it does need.

Edit: Sorry, might have understood your question wrong, as you might mean that the AGM-114L would not require active target designation with the Longbow radar? If so, then not. But there could be possibility the tell more about target to missile in flight?

 

As there has been lots of mentions in the APKWS II program that one of the key features compared to competitors in the same new guided rocket systems that APKWS II didn't require compatibility to Hellfire launch system like others did.

 

APKWS – Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System
LOGIR – LO Cost Guided Imaging Rocket
DAGR – Direct Attack Guided Rocket

 

Like example the DAGR was incorporated to M299 launcher that Hellfire uses. The FCS detects the DAGR as Hellfire missile and it is used same manner.

The LOGIR system is more complex than two others, as there the FCS transmits the target position and velocity vector to each rocket before launch, so the rocket can guide itself autonomously and then have "fire and forget" capability to recognize target by itself. The LOGIR receives the helicopter FLIR image for the target so it knows what it is suppose to look for.

All rockets requires that laser code is set mechanically prior to them for basic functionality, but with the digital pod the others like LOGIR allows to use the Hellfire bus to adjust codes before launch, but these pods are not in service yet but under development. 

 

  

 

This is one reason why the APKWS II was successful as it didn't require hardware or software modifications to FCS or platform to use the rocket and it is backward compatible to all launcher pods that exists, but benefits from the extended pods made for it to cover the rocket warhead and better aerodynamics. 

 

What you do with the laser Hellfire is same as with the radar variant, you tell where the target is (range, altitude etc) and you can select the guidance style for the missile is it LOAL or LOBL. 

 

Quote

My question is I wonder how useful active RADAR homing is going to be in a cluttered environment; I wonder how the RADAR manages to pick up stationary ground targets in amongst the clutter.

 

 What I remember from the AGM-114L version with its millimeter radar, you needed to tell it that what kind a target and where it is. As the radar is activated only when reaching the target area and then it try to match the target "picture" that Apache transferred to it from its Longbow system. The Longbow system has library of the target types and it can this way (by the book, reality is different) tell is the target a APC, MBT, AAA etc. And when the Hellfire reach the area it will scan the area for the targets and it knows thing like "third from the left, an APC" and it finds it and strikes there. 

 

1.16 Image

 

But in reality the Longbow radar and AGM-114L are....  not so great as on paper. 

Why the laser variant is the primary one as radar can pick up something by itself, or nothing at all. Sure it is great again on a desert where there are strong radar return from a tightly grouped vehicles on flat terrain. But put the vehicles in the European terrain, inside forest edge, concealed with the foliage, popping up counter measurement smoke (against IR, Radar and visual), it just means you don't find or see the target what so ever even with FLIR as in game now. The FLIR becomes like a "night vision" instead "there is somethin hot" and you need to see the shapes and movement. 

 

Pointing laser even on such target can be challenge, but if the target has camouflaged itself with example tree branches with plenty of leaves, it will shine like a torch at night when laser beam hits at it.  

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by NineLine
Removed a 1.16 Image

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

I think it does need.

Edit: Sorry, might have understood your question wrong, as you might mean that the AGM-114L would not require active target designation with the Longbow radar? If so, then not. But there could be possibility the tell more about target to missile in flight?

 

I wonder if the AGM-114L requires the FCR for guidance (or better put - cueing), or whether or not it can use the other sensors (I'm assuming it can).

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

What you do with the laser Hellfire is same as with the radar variant, you tell where the target is (range, altitude etc) and you can select the guidance style for the missile is it LOAL or LOBL.

 

Okay, so my assumption is correct, the FCR isn't strictly necessary for the AGM-114L

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

What I remember from the AGM-114L version with its millimeter radar, you needed to tell it that what kind a target and where it is. As the radar is activated only when reaching the target area and then it try to match the target "picture" that Apache transferred to it from its Longbow system. The Longbow system has library of the target types and it can this way (by the book, reality is different) tell is the target a APC, MBT, AAA etc. And when the Hellfire reach the area it will scan the area for the targets and it knows thing like "third from the left, an APC" and it finds it and strikes there.

 

Okay, this sounds like a development nightmare for the RADAR, I guess some hefty approximation is going to be required.

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

But in reality the Longbow radar and AGM-114L are....  not so great as on paper. 

Why the laser variant is the primary one as radar can pick up something by itself, or nothing at all. Sure it is great again on a desert where there are strong radar return from a tightly grouped vehicles on flat terrain. But put the vehicles in the European terrain, inside forest edge, concealed with the foliage, popping up counter measurement smoke (against IR, Radar and visual), it just means you don't find or see the target what so ever even with FLIR as in game now. The FLIR becomes like a "night vision" instead "there is somethin hot" and you need to see the shapes and movement. 

 

Pointing laser even on such target can be challenge, but if the target has camouflaged itself with example tree branches with plenty of leaves, it will shine like a torch at night when laser beam hits at it.  

 

I thought so.

[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.

[DaemonPhobos]

Certainly there is a RF missile engagement mode using the TADS alone, Lase 3 sec, fire missile.

however, if it receives targeting data from the FCR or not I'm not sure, perhaps it only uses inertial data to get close and then it uses it's own radar for terminal guidance.

Also, thermobaric 114N (metal augmented charge) hellfires were delivered to the USMC around 2003, and to the us army some years later, around 2006 perhaps.

I wonder if they are going to add those.

[Fri13]

10 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

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.

 

Design requirement is not same as actually performing as promised.

That is the message that real pilots has said about FCS not being so good. 

 

10 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

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?

 

Do not take it now literally, but the most optimal scenario you can have are vehicles on the flat sand desert. The far more challenging ones are the forest landscapes with plenty of ground clutter, counter measurements, false targets, camouflages etc. Regardless that the radar is millimeter radar, it range is not so great and its detection and locking capabilities neither.

Compared to worst case scenario that you are flying in heavy rain, in mist etc where your FLIR and NVG becomes almost useless, the radar is great to find the huge rolling waves of the vehicles on open flat crop field as alternative is that you don't get anything.

 

This is a Longbow system, that has been updated now at least six times, what version that is unknown:

 

 

 

 

Mi-28 has a similar radar system, but provides different visuals in this example is the mapping mode (that AN/APG-78 Longbow has as well):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdsGd9hwyc8&t=127s

 

 

The Mi-28 radar one feature is to generate a 3D terrain from the radar, and at 400 meters range it can detect individual power poles to generate the NOE flight warnings. 

Likely the Apache has similar thing in its ground mapping for navigation.

 

In good conditions the Mi-28 should detect a MBT at about 12-15 km range, but it requires them to be in best case scenario situation. Similar as with the upgraded Apache at 10-12 km range (otherwise at about 4-5 km). 

Apache uses a radio frequency locator to identify targets as well, so example a MBT platoon commander uses a radio to talk to rest of the platoon, that signal is used to confirm the target type and location. (Again, one of the reasons that so many is laughing at that Russians train to operate in radio silence by using hand signals as well). Likely this same capability is in the Mi-28 as well. 

 

But how would a attack helicopter FCS identify that what is a bush, and what is a MBT, IFV or APC?

 

As when a MBT does something like this:

 

Or like this:

 

 

At that point they become invisible to the radar as long they do not start moving, as the surveillance modes scans the terrain and detects the changes, not the movement itself.

 

You don't really need any special ones like Saab Barracuda: https://americansecuritytoday.com/saab-to-provide-ulcans-camouflage-to-safeguard-us-warfighters-video/

But those add improved characteristics to normal camouflage nets. 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

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.

 

There is a many reasons why laser guided weapons are the primary ones. The weapons targeting systems are not excellent or great. But they are better than not having them.

Even current modeling of the IR mavericks are seriously overperforming compared to what real videos show and pilots say about them.

AFAIk the 

 

10 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

TL;DR: the FCR is a sensor and isn't mandatory for AGM-114L use.

 

Of course FCR is a sensor, but how do you get a AGM-114L know what to search for at the target area? Just to go for the strongest radar return as a "that blocky shape there is the target" aka "tank at the desert"?

Or do you mean that the FCR is not required to guide the Hellfire in like a semi-active radar missile?

 

In DCS we do not have anything that comes to camouflages or proper ground vehicle tactics or concealment. We just have units as targets at end of a shooting range.

And so likely the A-G radar for the attack helicopter like Apache will be overperforming from the real deal.

 

[Raptor9]

Since most aspects of the FCR system are sensitive in nature, there really is no way to resolve such rampant speculation without diving into sensitive areas, nor would it matter since the implementation of such a system in DCS will always be an approximation anyway.

 

As long as the simulation is good enough to be believeable, respectfully, I don't think it really matters what strapping a few branches onto a tank in real life does.

[joelsi]

The FCR has on paper range limits of 8 km against moving ground targets and 6 km against stationary ground targets.

 

All the SME comments I've heard regarding the FCR suggest that its performance doesn't live up to the hype it gets.

 

In addition to the SME comments there's also the document called "Longbow Stationary Target Indicator Technical History" (you can find it with a Google search) that talks a bit about the FCR's performance against stationary targets. From that document here's a brief synopsis of aviator experiences from OIF regarding the FCR: 

 

[TZeer]

But you have to remember, that feedback on the longbow from Iraqi Freedom is close to 18 years old... That's almost 20 years of improvements and development.

 

Even a 2005-2006 version would have 2-3 years of development and improvements based on feedback from such an operation.

 

 

[Krippz]

2 hours ago, TZeer said:

But you have to remember, that feedback on the longbow from Iraqi Freedom is close to 18 years old... That's almost 20 years of improvements and development.

 

Even a 2005-2006 version would have 2-3 years of development and improvements based on feedback from such an operation.

 

 

There's also tons pilots accounts where pilots state that they would prefer to not have it equipped and would rather the extra speed/horsepower with it removed. The effective range is the effective range, it's not going to change much.

[Fri13]

On 3/15/2021 at 5:21 PM, Raptor9 said:

As long as the simulation is good enough to be believeable, respectfully, I don't think it really matters what strapping a few branches onto a tank in real life does.

 

As long it is believable compared to what? To real world, or to other games?

As it matters what vehicle crews does to conceal them from the enemy.

 

 

 

[joelsi]

The range limitations I posted are valid for a software version that's as new as 2010 and I haven't heard of any FCR upgrades for a AH-64D of our timeframe that would drastically improve its performance

 

 

 

 

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, TZeer said:

But you have to remember, that feedback on the longbow from Iraqi Freedom is close to 18 years old... That's almost 20 years of improvements and development.

 

Even a 2005-2006 version would have 2-3 years of development and improvements based on feedback from such an operation.

 

Then we would be talking about the AH-64E variant, not anymore about the AH-64D. As one pilot said in the Fighter Pilot Podcast that Apache project gained a lot from the canceling of Comanche project, where the funding and the technologies were concentrated to AH-64E (without cancelling RAH-66 the AH-64E wouldn't have happened). 

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/090-ah-64-apache/

 

It was a interesting footnote about it.

 

And invasion of the Iraq is still going, while the operation "Iraqi Freedom" ended in 2011. That is only 10 years ago, and the focus of the Apache project was put on the E model, where D was left more as is but received plenty of updates. Like the radar should have now a 360 degree observation scan for ground mode instead just old 45/90 degree. But how much one can really make the radar suddenly work so much better in the urban areas or against concealed units etc? That is more about just physical restrictions than about technology limitations. Like you can't never find a target behind building and when you have huge amount of streets and narrow corridors and plenty of non-threat vehicles etc, it just doesn't work. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fri13]

26 minutes ago, Krippz said:

There's also tons pilots accounts where pilots state that they would prefer to not have it equipped and would rather the extra speed/horsepower with it removed.

 

It sounds like OH-58 and AH-64D pilots really were put in compromise with so much technologies that helicopter flight capabilities were challenging. What that E model should have again improved from the D. 

 

So flying with almost maxed weight doesn't sound fun at all if you had previously a more powerful version (the A model) to begin with. 

 

26 minutes ago, Krippz said:

The effective range is the effective range, it's not going to change much.

 

I think that target type recognition could have been improved or better way to detect some smaller movements/speeds and hence get almost twice the detection range between D and E, but again it can mean anything as on paper 8 km to become 16 km can mean in reality it could be from 4 km to 7 km etc). 

 

It is just impossible to guess, and those who know can't say. 

[KiwiOz]

Will you be adding hellfire2 semi active radar version?

[Northstar98]

The AGM-114L?

 

Yes, and a model of it is already present in the Bazar -> World -> Shapes directory (which you can view with the modelviewer2.exe found in the bin folder).

[KiwiOz]

Cheers

[Silver_Dragon]

AGM-114L