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

[DaemonPhobos]

The 2002 number for the aircraft date comes, most likely, from an early misunderstanding from the ED team, that the available manual is from 2002 just because it says so in the title, the reality is, if you check 5 pages below, it is TM blah blah-251-10 with change 5 from 2005, date in which the MTADS was delivered to the US army, it's such an early integration of the MTADS that it had only 4 targets capability for the MTT instead of 6 like the 2009 ones.

The late CMWS integration comes from late info that the team might have gotten hands onto after their initial announcement, since it's a 2007 system aprox.

As of now, there is nothing to prove that the aircraft might have any historical inaccuracies, there are just a couple of pictures available.

 

Regarding the APKWS, it's just not a minor weapon that makes absolutely no difference if integrated or not, it's something that will be the most commonly used weapon in the aircraft, due to quantity, accuracy and lethality.

All of those will be based on a weapon that didn't even exist at all when this aircraft was flying, making this the "ED: AH-64D apache with magic time travelling APKWS rockets that spam every server".

Using that logic we can also add drone interoperability, fuzed mode for the PNVS, LINK-16, just because the aircraft can do it in 2021.

 

 

 

[3WA]

4 hours ago, DaemonPhobos said:

Considering that APKWS is going to be pretty much the primary rocket load for every single DCS player, (some are not even going to carry hellfires at all, just x4 m261 with 16 AGRs each) of course it will be a rocket spam based on an anachronism, completely killing any sort of realism the module may have.

Then don't use it in your missions, and ban it on your server.

But don't tell other people what they can and cannot use.  That's the whole problem with what Fri13 called "religion and politics" on this forum.

 

Yeah, personally, I find the APKWS a little too easy.  I like the challenge of getting good with unguided rockets.  But each to his own.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[M1Combat]

"But don't tell other people what they can and cannot use. "

 

 

LOL...  don't tell ED what they do and don't have to model :).

 

You're welcome.

Also...

 

"Then don't use it in your missions, and ban it on your server.

But don't tell other people what they can and cannot use. "

 

Eh what...

 

tell them what they can use but also then don't tell them what they can use???

[Fri13]

9 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

I think we're venturing into the realms of flat earther levels of arguing here, make a point, twist the hell out of it, even if the opponent never said it, juggle around logical fallacies, using them completely inappropriately, demonstrating a total disregard for what they mean, and finally coming to the conclusion that the opponent supports your argument.

 

It is quite literally playing chess with a pigeon.

 

You lost all your arguments. You were pointed how you twist things with circular reasoning, and finally when you notice that you admitted being totally wrong, you had no other way than do ad hominem. You call me the flat earth supoorter and a pigeon.

 

You couldn't reason a thing about your CCIP claims.

You couldn't reason your "real world integration" claim.

You couldn't reason your "circa xxxx" claim.

You couldn't reason mission editor and it time filter.

You couldn't reason the ED business model and project management.

 

You and Desert Fox can ignore everything just to do personal attack as you can not reason your arguments.

 

Just tag me with laughs, saddens and cry faces, more I get those then more I am right as it symbols that you get confused and you get sad about not understanding a thing. You can laugh, but it doesn't change that you couldn't reason.

[DaemonPhobos]

This is about the reputation of DCS being a study simulator with gaming elements and not just a videogame with systems simulation.

Their goal is to model an AH-64D block 2, undisclosed lot and software, around 2005 to 2008, which may change if they get more info.

It's quite likely that every single aircraft in the fleet already had new software by 2015, date in which the APKWS was integrated.

Student handouts from 2009 onwards and manuals from 2012 already show some differences in the MPD displays and software.

That would definitely be a frankenstein monster, since it's a weapon that makes a huge difference in gameplay and tactics.

Besides, I don't even know why you are so interested in this weapon system, are you aware that this aircraft is already the most capable air to ground platform by that era?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tippis]

9 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

"But don't tell other people what they can and cannot use. "

 

 

LOL...  don't tell ED what they do and don't have to model :).

No, actually, really do tell them that more often. Because it was exactly that that led us to having a Supercarrier module that didn't split the needlessly community and became a far more useful and worth-while module for it.

 

You're welcome.

 

6 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

Besides, I don't even know why you are so interested in this weapon system, are you aware that this aircraft is already the most capable air to ground platform by that era?

Because it's a fun weapon to use; because it is superbly suited for being used on this platform; because it will tie very neatly into the parallel use of the Kiowa assuming Polychop doesn't screw it up as badly as they did the Gazelle; and because it's a pretty sensible thing for it to have if it's going to exist alongside other aircraft that use the same weapon system.

[3WA]

8 hours ago, Desert Fox said:

Sorry.  Ignore this.  Not by Desert Fox.  Somehow forum quoted this and I can't seem to delete it.

But does the APKWS NEED software?  It sounds like it could just be loaded on any aircraft that can carry a Hydra pod.

The way it is being described, is you just launch like an unguided rocket, and it activates, homing on a certain laser code.

If that is true, than ANYTHING hydra capable, could carry it.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

21 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Then don't use it in your missions, and ban it on your server.

But don't tell other people what they can and cannot use.  That's the whole problem with what Fri13 called "religion and politics" on this forum.

 

That is part of it, not the whole...

 

21 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Yeah, personally, I find the APKWS a little too easy.  I like the challenge of getting good with unguided rockets.  But each to his own.

 

The unguided rockets are at this moment too accurate. But they are as well way too ineffective. Those things will change in the future when all required things comes to simulation like damage modeling, AI logic and so on.

 

But most importantly we need the proper FLIR to come that will start denying people from spotting units so easily. It will become time of day and weather dependent how well FLIR works.

And adding a proper laser simulation would mean that all engament ranges drops much shorter. It becomes more challenging to get JTAC to paint targets. And targets will get proper self-defense tactics like smoke screens to block the laser, FLIR, radar and visuals. 

When players are required to get close to paint target, get close to acquire a laser spot, all proper directions and angles required to taken in consideration. Then the laser guided weapons becomes much more difficult to use and FLIR weapons even more.

 

Then it becomes more benefitting to start using unguided rockets as they work better in various cases where it comes to be real war scenarios and not just blowing up a technical in desert.

 

But nothing should be denying mission designer from using realistic and possible weapons in their missions as they see it to fit as long it is technically possible to be equipped on it in real world.

 

We should give mission designers more freedom to build their campaigns and missions as they see, not to restrict them for political reasons. As there will always be those who make missions that are just "shooting fish in a barrel" but there are as well those who put a lot of effort for realistic scenarios that are challenging and dynamic.

 

Personally I too find APKWS too easy, partially because the DCS doesn't model laser guided weapons right. But it doesn't mean that it is not nice to sometimes get to that situation that you would need them.

 

[3WA]

5 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

But nothing should be denying mission designer from using realistic and possible weapons in their missions as they see it to fit as long it is technically possible to be equipped on it in real world.

This.  Exactly.

[M1Combat]

Look I argued for the SC module being the way it is...

 

And I won't argue against the APKWS on the D...  Exactly...

 

The super carrier "IMPLEMENTATION" was argued...  Not whether or not it would be included at all.

 

We argued "how" it was included in DCS.

 

For the APKWS it's only being argued whether it should be here...  not "how" exactly.

 

If they model it...  I'm all for it being only available when the ME is set to after 2015...  And I get that this is the arguement in the thread...  But they've said they have no plans to include it and they have nebulously indicated out apache will be from before 2015...  so including the APKWS would make it a post 2015 model and would then need a massive amount of other things to make it accurate.  

 

Or...  

 

They could put it in the game and let the fantasy folks load them up however they wish...   An apache from ~2008 with future weapons hung off of it.

 

Yeah...  they could do that.  I'm not personally even opposed.

 

BUT...

 

They said they aren't including it.  likely because to make it accurate...  they would then need to bring the apache up to APKWS timeline spec.  I suspect that they are both not willing AND not able due to their contract.  Either one is fine for me...  willing or able.

 

Let the mod community hang them for you.  What wrong with that?

[DaemonPhobos]

No, the APKWS does not need software, nor apparently has, according to what a pilot told.

There are only two connectors for fuzing and firing on M261 launchers, that's all the communication with the rockets.

You set the laser seeker code on the rockets themselves and you cannot mix them with standard 6PD rockets as expected.

That said, it's not a matter of software, but of realism.

If it was a simple smoke rocket, a radio, etc, It would be acceptable,

But it's a day or night difference, based on speculation and anachronism.

 

 

[3WA]

For me, the problem is they have put APKWS on the new A-10C II, which now means they are in the "DCS World".  So, if your mission includes the DCS A-10C II, well you're obviously beyond the time when it was produced, and therefore APKWS has been produced, so how can you deny it to other older aircraft capable of carrying it, in the same mission?  Catch-22.

[Fri13]

12 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

This is about the reputation of DCS being a study simulator with gaming elements and not just a videogame with systems simulation.

 

Simulation means as well that you can do stuff that you wouldn't in reality.

Like you can go to fly apache in combat without anything else than a cannon and extra fuel tanks. 

 

You can load a 16 Hellfires even if going just taking out a flight patrol.

 

You can try to land at 4000-4500 meters altitude bases fully loaded if so wanted.

 

The realism comes from the technical capabilities. Like Apache can not mount Vikhr system, so it shouldn't be there.

It can't have a AGM-88, so again not to be included.

 

But it can load and launch APKWS II rockets  all of its rocket pods. There is not a single thing stopping that.

 

 

12 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

Their goal is to model an AH-64D block 2, undisclosed lot and software, around 2005 to 2008, which may change if they get more info.

 

Again that is not a single year when their any chosen configuration is in service. And it shouldn't be restricted in a simulator to be impossible build wanted scenarios.

Tag all the weapons, all the features and choices with proper time stamps. So by default they get filtered in mission editor by chosen year.

 

Don't let the politics rule that what someone decided should or shouldn't be done because funding or because logistics or because someone else needed them more elsewhere or because someone decided that this specific group are not so important to deserve things early.

 

Let the mission designer to make their decisions that what they see more fitting. Let them to decide do they want to go as close as possible with a real history, or go and fork it as they see it fit.

 

Like maybe someone would like to try to remake a First Gulf War when apaches should take out the radar stations.

Or maybe someone does modern Syria missions.

Maybe someone wants to make a Fulda Cap scenario in Normandy map.

Maybe someone just want to remake the Fire Birds movie like people remake top gun and other flight movies.

 

Nothing changes the fact that APKWS II is backward compatible and it is irrelevant what software, block, tape, lot etc the aircraft has, as long they can launch unguided Hydra 70, so long they can use APKWS II. Only limitation should be that time filter for normal missions unless designer disables the time filter to get unlimited access for everything.

 

 

 

 

[M1Combat]

You folks are just not getting it.

 

The fact that you can hang a APKWS rocket launcher off of something "does not" mean it should be doable in DCS.

 

You are not understanding the point.

 

This is like saying "Please add super tires to the race car in iRacing"...  because the wheels are the right size and in theory someone could spoon them on there....

 

Yes...  It is too.

 

It's exactly the same.

 

iRacing models a car as raced in a specific series.

 

ED models the Apache as it existed in the way they want to AND the way they can get licensing.

 

 

Guess what...

Dallara iR-01

FANTASY CAR

 

Yeah...

DCS AH-64D Apache from any time before 2015 with APKWS

FANTASY HELI

 

You can't have your cake and eat it too boys...

 

It's either an apache from before or after APKWS.

 

ED has said it's from before.

 

So...  It can't have APKWS.

 

It is that simple.

 

ZERO points about what you could have hung from that chopper and fired at some enemy are valid.

 

0.

 

 

All that said ...

 

I'd still love to have a later Apache modeled that has APKWS...

 

But not an earlier one with weapons from the future :).

Edited April 23, 2021 by M1Combat

[3WA]

16 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Nothing changes the fact that APKWS II is backward compatible and it is irrelevant what software, block, tape, lot etc the aircraft has, as long they can launch unguided Hydra 70, so long they can use APKWS II. Only limitation should be that time filter for normal missions unless designer disables the time filter to get unlimited access for everything.

Ok then.  So, APKWS is backwards compatible to any aircraft that can carry Hydra, so only the Year matters.

Just because some people don't like them, doesn't mean they should be excluded, if the Year is beyond when they were produced.  Jet pilots spam AMRAAM's all over the place in the servers.  I don't see anyone trying to stop them.

3 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

It's either an apache from before or after APKWS.

It doesn't matter what year the Apache was produced.  What matters is the Year the mission takes place, as an old Apache could be fitted with them after APKWS was produced.  And this is REALISTIC.  Say, Mission takes place in 2020.  An old Apache could carry them.  Hell, a UH-1 could probably carry them, if he had a JTAC to lase for him.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

10 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

They could put it in the game and let the fantasy folks load them up however they wish...   An apache from ~2008 with future weapons hung off of it.

 

Why it is that APKWS II is "a weapon from a future"? 

Why it is not as what it is, mission editor defaults to 2016, that it is Apache from the past in mission from the past in 2016?

(As we live in 2021 at this moment).

 

It it is not a fantasy when a modern ammunition is technically compatible with a old weapon.

 

Why it is assumed that on the year that new specification for new block/lot/tape etc becomes available, that every single unit is upgraded and modified to that new one, and there will no more exist any older ones for some time?

 

LIke even today military personnel's are flying and using vehicles that are decades old without updates. There is no need to change them or that upgrading is so expensive that from 500 units only 50 will be upgraded per year and it takes 10 years to get all upgraded, or only 125 units will be funded for upgrading and rest are kept as is.

 

The only fantasy is that DCS simulates only a single year vehicles. That those vehicles do not exist any other year than one very specific.

 

Like a country buys 145 new fighters, and they are delivered them in 5 year period. 

That is 29 fighters per year.

 

What if the country decides to upgrade their 75 fighters to a new version? It doesn't happen in a single year.

 

And after buying something or upgrading something, it is going to be in service in that configuration far longer than a single year.

 

Like one ground crew chief told here at the forums about F-16CM Blk 50 that in the airbase he works, there likely was not a two same kind F-16CM Blk 50 as all are different. There are software features in some that are missing on others, there are different panels, different wiring, different many things.

So what is the one of all of them that is 'the correct one'?

 

If DCS go to simulate a unique airframe, in specific airbase, in a specific squadron and all... It is more asking trouble than anything else.

[DaemonPhobos]

You could also mount a brick to the pylons, a toilet, a B-54 nuclear bomb with the mechanical PAL unlocked, the fact that you can do it does not mean that is something serious to implement.

There has to be a logical limit of what they should implement, and that is regulated by historical accuracy within some limits.

It's quite likely that 16 RF hellfire missiles were never loaded into combat due to budget limits, however, it would be within a reasonable threshold of realism, it was a weapon that existed in that era, it is a valid loadout, and it's technically possible.

However, you are suggesting to implement a weapon that was integrated into the aircraft 6 years ago, to an aircraft over 16 years old.

It's futile to try to be accurate when you do that.

 

 

 

 

 

[M1Combat]

"Nothing changes the fact that APKWS II is backward compatible and it is irrelevant what software, block, tape, lot etc the aircraft has, as long they can launch unguided Hydra 70, so long they can use APKWS II."

 

OK...  Please explain how an apache in 2008 could have used APKWSII??

 

Without using words like magic or time machine...

[3WA]

@DaemonPhobos You are denying reality, just because you don't like it.  By your words and others, APKWS CAN be fitted on older aircraft.  And if the mission takes place in 2015 onwards, any old aircraft can be carrying APKWS.  And it would probably be done, if it gave the aircraft a good advantage in the mission.  Why deny capability?

Yeah, if your mission takes place in like 2005 or so, well of course, APKWS would not be available, because it hasn't been produced yet.  It all depends on the Year of the mission.

I can see why you don't want it on your servers.  It's just too "unskilled".  People will spam the hell out of it.  A short range Vhiker that's even easier to shoot.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[DaemonPhobos]

The ultimate argument I have for this.

It isn't a realistic loadout because it wasn't an authorized weapon system for that era.

Weapons must go through airworthiness qualifications first before they get approved for aircraft use.

Therefore, using APKWS on a real AH-64D circa 2005 on real combat situations would have gotten a ground crew personnel discharged from service under normal circumstances.

 

[M1Combat]

"If DCS go to simulate a unique airframe, in specific airbase, in a specific squadron and all... It is more asking trouble than anything else."

 

No sir...  No.

 

It solves all the problems.

 

It says that on May 14th 2008 there was an Apache headed into a mission...  It had this picture attached to the dash and on that day the crew chief scratched the paint right "there" while working on the chopper...

 

We're simulating THAT aircraft and it's capability.

 

They even put the airframe serial numbers on them friend...  They are ACTUALLY a specific airframe.  At a specific time.  With a specific set of capability that has been decided based on all sorts of things by ED.

 

In this case...

 

They chose an airframe and time that doesn't include APKWS.

 

 

Your argument is "completely" invalid in the face of that.  

 

It "DOES NOT" matter that in the future at some point that very same airframe may have had another mission and deployed APKWS.

 

It does not matter.

 

 

Please keep in mind...

 

Again...

 

That I too would rather see a later Apache modeled WITH APKWS.

 

 

But that's not the one we're getting.

 

Are you REALLY going to sit here and try to force ED to justify every decision they've ever made regarding this subject (to include the BS3 and why we fly old mustangs against new BF109's) just so you can argue and bitch about the apache not having some weapon you want to use??

 

 

GO EFFING MOD THE EFFING THING FRIEND!!!!

 

 

 

[3WA]

Lol, you can't mod anything on this game.  It's near impossible.  They've even locked out weapons mods now in 2.7.

 

And just a heads up, M1.  For some reason, there is black background on all of your sentences.  Don't know if you are doing that on purpose or not.  Your the only one showing like that.

[DaemonPhobos]

A 2005 AH-64D in 2015 still has the same manual, with the same authorized stores,

Loading APKWS is possible by hardware and software, but not authorized, therefore, as valid as loading a toilet in the PIUs

[3WA]

18 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

The ultimate argument I have for this.

It isn't a realistic loadout because it wasn't an authorized weapon system for that era.

Weapons must go through airworthiness qualifications first before they get approved for aircraft use.

Therefore, using APKWS on a real AH-64D circa 2005 on real combat situations would have gotten a ground crew personnel discharged from service under normal circumstances.

 

I see your point, but you're going too far for this sim.  ED would have to start building many, many different modules of the same heli for just tiny modifications.  We have a word for this in my Medical field.  Clinically Insignificant.  It's not worth it.  So just let it slide.  99% of people in this sim aren't going to care.

All these restrictions you guys want need to go into server restrictions and mission restrictions.  Then everyone can be happy.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

22 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Ok then.  So, APKWS is backwards compatible to any aircraft that can carry Hydra, so only the Year matters.

 

Exactly. Only the mission year matters is it available to all compatible (Hydra 70 capable launchers) aircraft.

 

22 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Just because some people don't like them, doesn't mean they should be excluded, if the Year is beyond when they were produced.

 

If mission is set from 2013 to this date it would be allowed to be accessible to all compatible units.

 

22 minutes ago, 3WA said:

It doesn't matter what year the Apache was produced.  What matters is the Year the mission takes place, as an old Apache could be fitted with them after APKWS was produced.

 

Exactly. Anything that would be in operational use since 2013 would get possibilty. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, 3WA said:

And this is REALISTIC.  Say, Mission takes place in 2020.  An old Apache could carry them.  Hell, a UH-1 could probably carry them, if he had a JTAC to lase for him.

 

Sure. Nothing would be stopping it if mission designer doesn't disallow it by setting the warehouse count zero.

 

"Naval Air Systems Command announced 2013 Oct. 15 that U.S. Central Command had released its Military Utility Assessment for the fixed-wing APKWS, which confirmed the laser-guided rocket system met all performance requirements to launch from the A-10 Thunderbolt II, AV-8B Harrier II and F-16 Fighting Falcon."

 

"BAE also recently used internal funding to conduct testing on the Apache helicopters in the hopes of tapping into a pool of international customers currently flying that platform. On Sept. 4 and 5, soldiers at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona fired eight shots as part of the process of becoming qualified under the Army’s airworthiness release process, Riffee said at a press briefing at the Association of the United States Army annual meeting and exposition on 2013 Oct. 22. Apaches and Hydra rockets are already approved for foreign sales, and Riffee said that qualifying the APKWS could attract several foreign militaries. He added the company is in talks with “multiple” other nations but declined to name them."

 

"BAE submitted all its engineering data and test data from September and is now waiting for the Army to review the package and sign off on the qualification.

 

Riffee said sales to the Marine Corps are moving along nicely. The company recently completed its first full-rate production contract and is negotiating the terms of the second contract with the Navy now. He could not get into the details of the contract but said the Navy had BAE’s proposal and that a contract should be in place by the end of the calendar year [2013].

 

He added the company’s production facilities in Nashua, N.H., were being expanded to accommodate future foreign military sales, as well as hopefully sales to the Army eventually–the Army started APKWS but dropped it in 2007, with the Navy picking it up the following year on behalf of the Marine Corps."

 

Someone could argue about 2008 year, but 2013 is safer bet for Apache as foreign sales started then.

 

So doing mission dated after 2013 and it would be option to be used.

8 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

A 2005 AH-64D in 2015 still has the same manual, with the same authorized stores,

Loading APKWS is possible by hardware and software, but not authorized, therefore, as valid as loading a toilet in the PIUs

 

You are talking about politics.

And DCS is not about politics.

Only technical facts should matter, not what a some pencil pusher decides that funding are used for.