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

[Fri13]

25 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.

 

I know all that.

But that is nothing to do with the argument about CCIP importance. 

 

25 minutes ago, shagrat said:

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 have been on the otherside of this, so no need to tell about it.

I have as well long time already lobbied the idea here that DCS would eventually get the proper laser energy, material, atmospheric etc properties because at this moment it is super easy that laser spot is tracked through the vehicles and from any angle and from any distance really. But nothing of that has to do with the APKWS CCIP accuracy requirement claim. 

 

The fact is, that Desert Fox doesn't seem to know, is that APKWS DASALS has 40 degree INSTANT FIELD OF VIEW. 

You can literally aim it anywhere inside a +/-20 degree area where is the laser spot for it to capture it and guide in it.

 

The Fact is: Your CCIP or CCRP is not going to tell anything about where the laser spot is. You need a laser spot tracker for that thing to be pointed to you visually. Like example DMT/LST mode in Harrier. You use the LST to find the spot and you get to know where the laser spot is showing.

The fact is, LST is not even required for APKWS. It just helps you to find a target, but not required at all.

 

The fact is, when you are guided in for a given target, you already suppose to know the target. At the night you have challenges why the IR marker or a LST is nice thing to give you better idea. 

 

But the fact is still that APKWS II was deigned to make all those problems be irrelevant.

The guidance module is LOCK ON AFTER LAUNCH. The guidance modules knows nothing about the target on the launch. The guidance module does all the work autonomously after the activation. It just deroll the rocket for stable flight and it just looks for the laser spot. In DCS we need to pretend that laser spot is perfect, it is pin size and strongest possible laser spot you can find. But that is irrelevant. 

You can launch the APKWS from 7 km range as long you know it would have a change to capture the laser spot in its 40 deg/IFOV. 

 

The argument that are made here is that the APKWS magically requires a connection to FCS. That the FCS needs to be upgraded and updated and modified to the APKWS guidance module to it work. That the CCIP needs to be exactly correct for aiming the APKWS on the target or otherwise it will not work.

 

The fact is, all you need to do is to have target designated with laser by someone, and come from a proper direction to launch the rocket.

The guidance module can spot the laser half-way there or just third of the range or right after activation. It doesn't matter.

The CCIP on the HUD doesn't matter. 

The CCRP is not used.

There is no FCS communication to APKWS II. 

There is nothing to be done to FCS or to aircraft to utilize APKWS II on any platform.

 

The fact is that no military is going to accept any commercial contract with any weapon manufacture unless every weapon is properly tested for the specs.

Even when there would be nothing to be changed or so, the military does the tests just as bureaucracy requires. There are committees for everything, even for someone deciding that what color strap is painted on a rocket or how many are purchased to specific month and who can handle them etc. 

But the fact is that all those things are irrelevant in DCS. 

 

The manufacturer is clear about this, the military is clear about it. Problem is that people think that APKWS II is like a new weapon that requires all other things that any totally new weapon would, because it must. It can't be as it is built, designed, sold and used. It just can't be so in peoples mind here.

 

The argument about the CCIP importance and all is just grasping straws that is based to argument that because you need CCIP for unguided rocket to hit something, you need it as well for the APKWS II or it will not find its way on laser spot if you don't launch it exactly on target by aiming it with CCIP. Meaning that there can't even be a 1 mil error in the CCIP position or it will not work.

 

 

 

 

[Kev2go]

32 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

 

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.   

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245510-a-10c-suite-nomenclature/?do=findComment&comment=4427063

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245510-a-10c-suite-nomenclature/?do=findComment&comment=4425788

 

 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Kev2go

[Fri13]

33 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

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.

 

The parameters are same as with unguided Hydra 70 rockets. 

That is why your argument is irrelevant that you need to do complete software upgrade to get CCIP so accurate that you aim the APKWS II with it on the target.

 

33 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

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. 

 

There is no physical connection from the APKWS II to the aircraft in any platform.

That is in technical specifications. 

There is no normal rockets connection than to warhead fuzing options and a trigger pin to ignite the rocket motor. Nothing else in Hydra 70 family. This is in the maintenance manuals. 

 

33 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

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 is not same thing. A guided ballistic vertically dropped bomb vs rocket boosted warhead flying horizontally.

Or are you arguing that you will aim the GBU-12 with the CCIP or CCRP on the target and not with the laser designator?

 

33 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

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.

 

Not a same thing. 

 

33 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

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.

 

The integration is this:

 

 

 

1) You install the APKWS II unit between the warhead and rocket motor.

2) You set the proper laser code with screwdriver.

3) you turn the guidance module power switch to activate in launch with screwdriver

4) you load it to helicopter as unguided rocket.

5) You make sure that pilot is aware that there are APKWS II rockets loaded in the aircraft so he can work by his training with them. 

 

It really is not difficult to comprehend how even BAE explains the whole weapon:

 

 

Like how difficult it is to understand such statement as "For the pilot laser targeting procedures and armament control remain unchanged from those of current laser-guided weapons"?

The integration is same as with any Hydra 70 rocket. 

 

[Fri13]

23 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

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

 

Yes I did.

 

23 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

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

 

People believe that there is special connection to APKWS II that requires a FCS upgrades and all. 

 

23 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

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).

 

There isn't because the seeker has 40 degree instant field of view, that is much larger than example the pilot NVG is about 40 degree FOV, so everything you see with them, you need to get the APKWS II inside that area.

 

23 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

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.

 

The real problem is that people insist that the modules exist only in one year, that there is no service times at all. Like there is no more than one year when module simulated aircraft exists. And it can not exist in any other year than that. That is their only argument that they can not get over by any means.

They totally ignore the fact that in military you do not upgrade and modify the aircraft every year. You can have the same hardware and same software for decade or two if military doesn't see a requirement to upgrade it or get funding. So one same aircraft can sit 2-7 years as is without any changes. And the updates or changes there can be done, are usually irrelevant for any other part of the aircraft.

 

The APKWS II project goal was to make a weapon that doesn't require hardware or software changes to any existing launch platform. And they succeeded in that.

If the platform can launch any Hydra 70 rocket, then it can launch APKWS II. It doesn't matter is it from a Vietnam era in 2021 or is it a 2021 in service aircraft, all are capable launch APKWS II if they can just carry and launch Hydra 70 rockets.

 

And many are hypocrisy because they do fly missions that are not for corresponding year they preach, and they utilize modules in their missions that shouldn't be there. 

Like F/A-18C from 2005 is placed to mission in 2016 and then put it against a fighter from 1985, utilizing AGM-65 weapon from 2012... And then they just try to ignore all "but I can't do anything about it".

 

23 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

I'm neither supporting or against APKWS integration.

 

IMHO the APKWS II should be like any other rocket that is not tied to specific module.

It should only be tied to the year when it became available for given modules or services. 

So the mission designer can either maintain the time filter that limits aircraft, vehicles, weapons and all to the date of the mission. Or designer can disable that filter and take any time period vehicle in use for the mission. 

 

The APKWS II is a special weapon project that succeeded exemplary manner in its goals.

 

[Fri13]

43 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

I mean he did that video to just prove a point, not that that would be ideal to operate aircraft in that manner .

 

No, I don't go flying without HUD.... No HUD and it is abort. 

 

But someone does argument that APKWS II needs to be "integrated to FCS so it gets proper CCIP position". Well, it doesn't need it.

That is the whole point of the laser guided weapon that target is targeted with the laser and weapon hits to that and not where your CCIP happened to be on the moment.

If the CCIP would be required to be the tool to aim the weapon to hit the target, we would never use any laser guided weapons as the laser spot would be useless process as only the CCIP pipper matters.

 

The APKWS II has so wide field of view from where to capture the laser spot that any possible CCIP aiming error (technical or pilot caused) are totally irrelevant in any sensible normal unguided rocket launch parameters. And in fact the launch can be done totally as blind shot or "from the hip" as the "laser does the job". 

 

Like the APKWS is now being added to various land based vehicles as precision short range artillery support. You can launch them in proper direction and angle and the seeker will capture the laser spot and fly there. Have the support vehicle behind the hills and such and just have the generic idea where to aim.

 

It is likely one of the greatest weapons for few decades. A true force multiplier. 

[Raptor9]

There is obviously a LOT of back and forth in this thread about the APKWS; some of it is accurate, some of it is not. Let me clear the air a little to roll up the key facts regarding the APKWS usage on the AH-64D:

 

1) The AH-64D received zero software upgrades/modifcations to employ the APKWS.

2) The APKWS was never fielded to the US Army AH-64D fleet until around 2015. The weapon was tested prior to that date, but the Apache did not receive airworthliness certification to employ it until that time.

3) ED has stated multiple times they are basing their Apache on a US Army AH-64D, with a 2002 dated manual. Whatever the change number they are using on that 2002 manual (obviously not the original since the ED newsletter previews in February clearly show a Block 2 cockpit with a CMWS control head, and the list of features includes MTADS; neither of those systems were fielded in 2002) it would only carry it to 2012, when a brand new manual was published, dated 2012.

4) Any AH-64D with an avionics version between 2002 and 2012 is physically capable of operationally employing the APKWS with zero airframe/software modifications. However, AH-64Ds within those timeframes never did because the weapon itself wasn't fielded to the US Army.

 

To be clear, I'm not advocating for ED to enable the DCS Apache to fire APKWS, I personally don't care either way.

[DaemonPhobos]

Exactly, the issue is related to the expected time frame of the aircraft.

To summarize everything you need to know about the M261 launcher..

"Two electrical connectors on the top of the launcher provide 
fuzing and firing interface. The forward connector provides the 
fuzing, and the aft connector provides the firing circuit."

There is no connection for guidance data exchange to the Weapon processors, it is a standalone system.

About the CCIP stuff, it is most likely sure it uses the same unguided rocket steering cursors as unguided rockets with no special ballistic compensations, besides, unguided launch of APKWS is not authorized due to erratic flight profile,Apache has no CCRP.

however Apaches had software changes related to other systems between 2005 to 2015, like multiple MPD page changes and other stuff and new systems like satcom, mode 5 IFF, etc.

it would be impossible to know if all Apaches were modified to said software for the time APKWS was integrated.

ED has the final decision whether it should be implemented or not.

 

[Northstar98]

Brace yourselves it's a massive one.

 

3 hours ago, Kev2go said:

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245510-a-10c-suite-nomenclature/?do=findComment&comment=4427063

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245510-a-10c-suite-nomenclature/?do=findComment&comment=4425788

 

Cheers, though it just seems that ED has sorta made a hybrid of different suites, AFAIK it is still accurate for the A-10C II to have APKWS...

 

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The parameters are same as with unguided Hydra 70 rockets.

 

How can they be the same if APKWS have more mass and more drag, but the same motor? Have we entered alternative physics land?

 

Quote

That is why your argument is irrelevant that you need to do complete software upgrade to get CCIP so accurate that you aim the APKWS II with it on the target.

 

Nice straw man.

 

My only argument concerns the real life integration of APKWS on real platforms. Not what you personally think is necessary.

 

Quote

There is no physical connection from the APKWS II to the aircraft in any platform.

That is in technical specifications. 

There is no normal rockets connection than to warhead fuzing options and a trigger pin to ignite the rocket motor. Nothing else in Hydra 70 family. This is in the maintenance manuals.

 

Yep, have known about it from the get go Fri, it's completely irrelevant.

 

Quote

It is not same thing. A guided ballistic vertically dropped bomb vs rocket boosted warhead flying horizontally.

 

Gonna have to do a bit better than that I'm afraid - it is exactly the same argument and you even highlight that in a subsequent comment.

 

Quote

Or are you arguing that you will aim the GBU-12 with the CCIP or CCRP on the target and not with the laser designator?

 

Nope, just that in the majority of aircraft we have the GBU-12 does have CCIP and CCRP available, requiring their parameters.

 

But hey, you keep making straw men.

 

Quote

The integration is this:

 

Yes, I understand how APKWS works, failing to see the relevancy here...

 

At the end of the day a 2002 Apache doesn't have APKWS and that's basically the only relevant fact here.

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The real problem is that people insist that the modules exist only in one year, that there is no service times at all. Like there is no more than one year when module simulated aircraft exists. And it can not exist in any other year than that. That is their only argument that they can not get over by any means.

 

What part of having realistic building blocks, but scenarios completely up to you is so difficult to understand? It's basically DCS' entire thing.

 

A 2002 US Army AH-64D is still a 2002 US Army AH-64D regardless of the map, livery, or time. You set the date to whatever you want, it's not like it makes a difference outside historical mode.

 

Quote

They totally ignore the fact that in military you do not upgrade and modify the aircraft every year. You can have the same hardware and same software for decade or two if military doesn't see a requirement to upgrade it or get funding. So one same aircraft can sit 2-7 years as is without any changes. And the updates or changes there can be done, are usually irrelevant for any other part of the aircraft.

 

Hmmm, so is it "a decade or two" or is it "2-7 years"?

 

Quote

The APKWS II project goal was to make a weapon that doesn't require hardware or software changes to any existing launch platform. And they succeeded in that.

If the platform can launch any Hydra 70 rocket, then it can launch APKWS II. It doesn't matter is it from a Vietnam era in 2021 or is it a 2021 in service aircraft, all are capable launch APKWS II if they can just carry and launch Hydra 70 rockets.

 

Ah yes, a 1960s/70s A-1 Skyraider should get APKWS because muh compatibility, never mind it was retired with the only operator of APKWS 40 years before APKWS even existed.

 

Quote

And many are hypocrisy because they do fly missions that are not for corresponding year they preach, and they utilize modules in their missions that shouldn't be there. 

Like F/A-18C from 2005 is placed to mission in 2016 and then put it against a fighter from 1985, utilizing AGM-65 weapon from 2012.

 

It isn't all or nothing Fri, in fact it's DCS' whole thing. The building blocks are to be as authentic as possible to their RL counterparts, the missions you make are completely up to you, they have no bearing on each other, and any bearing they do have is totally up to you.

 

If you want to do otherwise, and strictly control it, well good luck convincing ED to delete the mission editor, as that's what you'll have to do...

 

Quote

And then they just try to ignore all "but I can't do anything about it".

 

Come on, at least try with the disingenuous remarks.

 

If I want to make a peer-to-peer mission that has consistent units for a particular year, I can't do it, the assets aren't available, it's a mile wide and an inch deep with stuff all over the place. So I have to work with what I've got, and that inevitably leads to inconsistencies somewhere.

 

I'd rather those inconsistencies didn't exist but I'll make do with what I've got, it's not like I've got another option.

 

Quote

It should only be tied to the year when it became available for given modules or services. 

 

What a fantastic way of making sure that modules perpetually stay in development. Unless of course, you only want this exclusively for APKWS? So not only are the assets, maps and modules inconsistent, the aircraft are too, brilliant.

 

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

But someone does argument that APKWS II needs to be "integrated to FCS so it gets proper CCIP position". Well, it doesn't need it.

 

[insert comparison to Paveway series here]

 

Quote

That is the whole point of the laser guided weapon that target is targeted with the laser and weapon hits to that and not where your CCIP happened to be on the moment.

 

Doesn't change how they're actually integrated though does it?

 

In the Apache's case, going by Raptor9's comment above, the AH-64D doesn't - not that it's relevant because APKWS still isn't accurate for a 2002 Apache.

 

Quote

If the CCIP would be required to be the tool to aim the weapon to hit the target, we would never use any laser guided weapons as the laser spot would be useless process as only the CCIP pipper matters.

 

Just how many times are you going to try and twist the argument?

 

Quote

It is likely one of the greatest weapons for few decades. A true force multiplier. 

 

And one that's definitely necessary on the most capable attack helicopter yet in DCS, that isn't only more capable as an attack platform, but also has around a 1-2 decade head start compared to it's contemporary modules, and to top it off, isn't even accurate for it in the first place.

Edited April 23, 2021 by Northstar98

[3WA]

49 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

ED has the final decision whether it should be implemented or not.

I constantly see this quoted, but members and ED have to understand, buyers have the final decision on whether they will buy it or not.

In the end, ED has to sell this.  And, of course, ED wants to make money.

Edited April 22, 2021 by 3WA

[Northstar98]

6 minutes ago, 3WA said:

I constantly see this quoted, but members and ED have to understand, buyers have the final decision on whether they will buy it or not.

In the end, ED has to sell this.  And, of course, ED wants to make money.

 

And I'm sure it'll do just fine, being accurate for whatever variant it's supposed to represent.

[3WA]

Actually, you guys who are "it must be EXACTLY correct for the age / variant / serial number" are a very small minority.

Some EXACT things are not going to be very popular.  For instance, I have no love of CMWS over stinger racks.  I mostly care whether it is in reality, can be put on the airframe, can be modeled mostly realistically (don't care about whether they get the wire colors right or not), works well in the DCS "World".  The "World" is pretty simple right now, and does not work well for helicopters.  There are no complicated hills, clearings, canyons, boulders, hiding places for a helicopter.  We have the tree line, and that's about it ( and even it doesn't hide you well ).

 

I'm sure the CMWS is like the MWS on the A-10C, where my plane spams / wastes flares and chaff just because the Russian tanks, etc. on the battle field are launching missiles.

None are aimed at me, but the system just starts spamming away.  I eventually just turn it off.  CMWS is just useless to me.  Give me stingers over that anyday.

 

Probably the BEST thing DCS could do is give out good modding tools for the aircraft and the "World".  Then most everyone could be happy, considering over 90% of people play this game offline, and want a sandbox.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[Northstar98]

15 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Actually, you guys who are "it must be EXACTLY correct for the age / variant / serial number" are a very small minority.

 

Based on?

 

Not that it's relevant - It's DCS' mission statement...

 

If you pick up something advertised as being realistic as possible and then buy something that's specific, only to have a problem with it accurately depicting whatever specific thing it is, then aren't you being a bit silly?

 

21 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Some EXACT things are not going to be very popular.

 

They probably aren't, but I thought this was realism focused?

 

Quote

Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.5 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

 

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

 

Right there on the front page.

[DaemonPhobos]

hace 2 horas, 3WA dijo:

Actually, you guys who are "it must be EXACTLY correct for the age / variant / serial number" are a very small minority.

Some EXACT things are not going to be very popular.  For instance, I have no love of CMWS over stinger racks.  I mostly care whether it is in reality, can be put on the airframe, can be modeled mostly realistically (don't care about whether they get the wire colors right or not), works well in the DCS "World".  The "World" is pretty simple right now, and does not work well for helicopters.  There are no complicated hills, clearings, canyons, boulders, hiding places for a helicopter.  We have the tree line, and that's about it ( and even it doesn't hide you well ).

 

I'm sure the CMWS is like the MWS on the A-10C, where my plane spams / wastes flares and chaff just because the Russian tanks, etc. on the battle field are launching missiles.

None are aimed at me, but the system just starts spamming away.  I eventually just turn it off.  CMWS is just useless to me.  Give me stingers over that anyday.

 

Probably the BEST thing DCS could do is give out good modding tools for the aircraft and the "World".  Then most everyone could be happy, considering over 90% of people play this game offline, and want a sandbox.

 

 

The APKWS integration is debatable since, if you came back in time to 2005 with a couple of laser guided rockets, loaded them up in the aircraft, you would be able to use them pretty much as you could do in post 2015 Apaches.

This is an anachronism, however, a somewhat feasible weapon..

 

Stingers however, require a completely new software to be uploaded into the Weapon processor LRUs, new missile symbology to be implemented into the Display processors, the removal of the CMWS EOMS, Seeker Acquisition cueing for the ATAS system (even the AH-64A experimental tests were able to be cued by the HMD), integration of the new wingtip pylons with the MIL-STD 1553 bus, Activation of the wingtip store jettison system, new CAGE/UNCAGE functionality in the Cyclic grip, etc.

This would have to be all made up since there is no available detailed information on any manuals about it.

 

Btw, with no CMWS, you get no flares, since CMWS and CMDS are a single unit interfaced with the AGP, so good luck dodging missiles with the IR jammer alone.

 

Now, coming back to the topic, the APKWS is indeed unrealistic, but acceptable to some degree.

I fear people will become too dependant on the APKWS and forget it's not a weapon that fits the timeframe and it gets added as a "gameplay" feature.

However, I find it as an acceptable addition if ED decides to include it.

 

 

 

 

 

[3WA]

I don't need the CMWS ripped out.  I just need a German / whatever export AH-64 with stinger racks.

[DaemonPhobos]

Totally not against that, I would like a JGSDF AH-64DJP with the camo scheme and complete ATAS integration even more than a AH-64E V4.

However, getting info for foreign Apaches is extremely difficult, somebody has to leak the documents first, and not counting the fact that they are restricted docs that might get somebody in trouble.

One cannot just mix a US army LBA with any other version, some may have AMASE integration, unknown jammer pods, different radios and cryptos, different ASE suite, it's impossible to know without their respective TMs.

If Air to Air capability is mandatory, I would wish for a W or Z cobra, which have sidewinder integration and publicly available manuals already.

Otherwise, just accept the Apache and try to bring enemies down with the AWS, some M255 flechettes, or a direct trajectory SAL hellfire, anyway, the stingers have only less than 8km range under ideal circumstances, fighters will kill you even if you have them and current helos are no match for the Apache.

 

 

 

 

[3WA]

I'll probably stick with the BS3 and iglas.  It's going to be a beast.

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Let me clear the air a little to roll up the key facts regarding the APKWS usage on the AH-64D:

 

1) The AH-64D received zero software upgrades/modifcations to employ the APKWS.

2) The APKWS was never fielded to the US Army AH-64D fleet until around 2015. The weapon was tested prior to that date, but the Apache did not receive airworthliness certification to employ it until that time.

3) ED has stated multiple times they are basing their Apache on a US Army AH-64D, with a 2002 dated manual. Whatever the change number they are using on that 2002 manual (obviously not the original since the ED newsletter previews in February clearly show a Block 2 cockpit with a CMWS control head, and the list of features includes MTADS; neither of those systems were fielded in 2002) it would only carry it to 2012, when a brand new manual was published, dated 2012.

4) Any AH-64D with an avionics version between 2002 and 2012 is physically capable of operationally employing the APKWS with zero airframe/software modifications. However, AH-64Ds within those timeframes never did because the weapon itself wasn't fielded to the US Army.

And if we put those facts next to the realities of the game, then…

1) No upgrades or modifications is needed to employ the APKWS — that's the whole point of the system.

2) Most missions take place after 2015.

3) We're already getting what is commonly labelled a “frankenplane” so what the manual says doesn't really give a good indication of what capabilities there are in the platform, especially not in respect to a system that changes nothing about that platform.

4) …but again, the timeframe in which this supposed-2002-but-not-really-so-who-knows bird will be flying is 2016 and later (since that seems to be the new default date in the mission editor).

 

1 hour ago, DaemonPhobos said:

I fear people will become too dependant on the APKWS and forget it's not a weapon that fits the timeframe and it gets added as a "gameplay" feature.

What timeframe is that? The famous China-vs-US clash over the oil fields of Abkhazia in 2021?

 

10 minutes ago, 3WA said:

I'll probably stick with the BS3 and iglas.  It's going to be a beast

It really won't since it will never happen. And the Ka-50 was already a very… questionable… platform to include (but that's ok — ED was young and needed the money ).

[3WA]

I know you guys don't search around much, but yeah, BS3 IS happening.  Confirmed by Wags in a YouTube post on the last podcast.

 

According to him and DCS, it's going to be released after the Apache.

 

If I remember right, Chizh also confirmed it in the Russian forums.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[Tippis]

3 minutes ago, 3WA said:

I know you guys don't search around much, but yeah, BS3 IS happening.  Confirmed by Wags in a YouTube post on the last podcast.

 

According to him and DCS, it's going to be released after the Apache.

Oh goodie. Always count on ED not being able to communicate things properly.

 

But good on them to keep the Ka-50 around to forever defeat any and all ideas that they only ever do real planes and systems.

[DaemonPhobos]

Again, aircraft with appropriate rocket pods can fire the APKWS, regardless of era (most aircraft in DCS should be getting APKWS using that logic, viper, hornet, harrier, F14, A-4E, etc.)

I don't think DCS mission and map dates are something that could be seriously related to the systems in an aircraft, it's a ridiculous comparison, it's like saying that a real USAF simulator shouldn't have the latest systems in the aircraft integrated because the satellite imagery the map was based on was taken 7 years ago, something completely laughable.

 

Up until now, there is no hint of any sort of frankenstein monster in DCS apache released pictures.

If they get their info right, it would be perfectly acceptable as a 2005 to 2007 apache, with the exception of some details on the WPN page that may not be correct. (Too early to tell)

 

 

 

[3WA]

17 minutes ago, Tippis said:

But good on them to keep the Ka-50 around to forever defeat any and all ideas that they only ever do real planes and systems.

Lol, yeah, I've always said it was a total experiment that never was really made.  It just eventually became the Ka-52.  I hear the last ones were just remade into Ka-52s.

 

So, after a lot of arguments between members, it was announced it would get the same wing stubs as the Ka-52, and have igla's added, as that would most likely be what it would have become if it hadn't been cancelled.  It was meant to be the attack / scout of the Ka-52, which would have acted as a command craft.

 

Ah, found the quote - From YouTube "Interview with Wags.  Talking future plans, maps and helo's for DCS"

 

quote - Wags - "BS3 is in active development, both art and new systems."  2 weeks ago.  In the comments where a guy asked about BS3.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[3WA]

21 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Oh goodie. Always count on ED not being able to communicate things properly.

If you really want to know what's going on, you have to pull up Google or Yandex translate, and start reading the Russian forum.  They don't seem to announce much here in the English one.

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

 

4) Any AH-64D with an avionics version between 2002 and 2012 is physically capable of operationally employing the APKWS with zero airframe/software modifications. However, AH-64Ds within those timeframes never did because the weapon itself wasn't fielded to the US Army.

 

 

That is the root for same argument as "The module can not be flown on missions that are dated outside of this specific year".

Except that instead one year, there is more realistic service years that aircraft was in real history in such condition. So instead just a 2002, it is 2002-2012. 

 

The APKWS was in development phase in 2002-2004 (years varies) for the Apaches, but again it is just a development with successful launches and hits.

 

Regardless of that.

The fact is that DCS is a simulator and we are not tied to real history or events.

Mission designers can place any unit, on any map and at any given year as the please. 

Be it a absurd "Final Countdown" campaign where a USN carrier appears in the Normandy map at year 1942 or so. 

Or be it a Soviet Union carrier appearing with Su-33 and KA-50 in a same way, as allies to Germany.

Fictional campaign based to a real movie, based to sci-fi.

If someone has problem, don't play it.

 

This is how we get back to the root argument who oppose the APKWS anywhere.

As weapon is "plug and play" without modifications, and no modifications are required to aim it, to launch it and to operate it. It will be restricted only to a given years when it became operational for given airframes. If someone is so nitpicky about 1985 Flanker flying with 2005 Hornet, then they never have problems with it. As they never make missions for hornet outside 2005 and never missions outside 1985 and never fly Mi-24P outside 1982... (Even when Mi-24P flies as is today, after 39 years).

 

Those who are more factual, know that Mi-24P is not restricted to 1982 but they can fly it in any mission all the way to this date.

Same is with Hornet, there are few units of it in example Finnish airforce in that 2005 condition even today as they didn't not build all of them with own modifications and mixtures between super hornets and own software and hardware (removed the hidden US kill switches in them). All compatible with APKWS II.

 

The helicopters, drones and all are being evaluated for the APKWS II because militaries really love to test all.

 

If someone does not want weapons that their favorites module capable launching Hydra 70 rockets in 2002-2018 period when it became available to them, by making missions in those years, then they can simply keep the weapon unloaded and enjoy flying alone. Others can enjoy realism by making missions dated to example 2020 in Syria and enjoy with new weapons that came available later on.

 

 

[Bananabrai]

I think DCS itself is kind of a time bubble, and that's why the opinions are so different.

 

I can only tell from the GAF, but things are not always the way they officialy seem.

Stuff gets tested, integrated and then the customer decideds (when it's ready), he doesn't want it anymore...

So what is it then, can an AC use the new equipment or not? Are we simulating an aircraft, or an amry, or just how a specific squadron operated it?
Should the sandbox decide that? I think so. The mission builders get more and more advanced, there scripts out their, take off loadout checks, we get more options to set in ME...

 

How often would I use APKWS on a UH-1H huey? Not often, as I need someone lasing for me, and I need to know where the target is.

Mabye I would lose a couple of missiles due to missalignment with the target.

But that's how it is in real life, laser designation is not 100% effective, sometimes the weapon doesn't see the laser.

Would I use it at all, heck yea. The UH-1D was phased out of German service 1 or 2 weeks ago. Why couldn't there be a UH-1H active in the timeframe of an APKWS?
Same counts for the Apache. Or the F-5E.
 

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, DaemonPhobos said:

Again, aircraft with appropriate rocket pods can fire the APKWS, regardless of era (most aircraft in DCS should be getting APKWS using that logic, viper, hornet, harrier, F14, A-4E, etc.)

 

I don't think DCS mission and map dates are something that could be seriously related to the systems in an aircraft, it's a ridiculous comparison, it's like saying that a real USAF simulator shouldn't have the latest systems in the aircraft integrated because the satellite imagery the map was based on was taken 7 years ago, something completely laughable.

 

My standing point is:

 

1) if it is technically possible then so be it. Leave politics and religion out of it. 

 

This means that if there are weapons that doesn't require modification then it can be used. If there is a weapon that does require modifications, then leave it out.

 

2) Forget the DCS module year arguments. We never can get anything if modules are from different specific years, like 1998, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. 

No one would never fly those modules against each others as that is just nitpicking by illusion that every single aircraft gets updated and modified every single year. And so on Apache is different aircraft in 2002, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and so on. Like every single aircraft would be going constant upgrading and modifications with infinite money and manpower and innovations.

 

 

Politics about what were official weapon loadouts or who bought what update and when, is as well irrelevant.

 

Many new weapons are not backward compatible, but some are. And such weapons should come available to those airframes that are technically compatible with it when the mission is dated to year or after the weapon came available.

 

If AH-64D as modeled was between 2002-2007 as is, then it fits to any mission dated between that. Likely there are as well units that operated the 2002 version even past 2007 as not all upgrades are done same time because funding. But as we leave politics out, we can as well accept that AH-64D from 2002 is still flown as is in 2016 as example.

 

Only thing that matters is that no one is equipping Apache with incompatible weapons like AGM-154 or Vikhr in it.

Those are incompatible with it, unlike APKWS II that is fully compatible when it comes available to be purchased in missions dated at proper year.