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

[Fri13]

12 minutes ago, 3WA said:

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

 

Yes. We can't anymore do realistic weapon loadouts or use a weapon mods with more proper ranges and guidance etc. 

They killed important part of the modding community.

 

12 minutes ago, 3WA said:

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.

 

He is using dark mode. That causes all the quotes to be included as rich text as he sees them, instead as plain text so only his purposely adjusted colors etc would show. Not his fault.

 

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, DaemonPhobos said:

The real problem I see when integrating APKWS is having a 2015's weapon on a 2005 aircraft.

It's true, the aircraft could have carried it, could... but it didn't, because APKWS did not exist at that time, in fact back in 2005 the program switched from general dynamics to BAE APKWS II because it performed poorly on testing according to some citations.

 

Your 2005 Apache doesn't exist in 2005 unless you fly it in mission dated to 2005.

If you fly in mission dated to 2016 (default) then you are flying 2005 Apache in 2016 and APKWS II would be available to it.

 

It doesn't go just that APKWS II is a future weapon that travels to past when it didn't exist.

 

It goes that you take the mission to fly a old helicopter from the past in more modern mission when new weapons have come available. Not all of them are compatible, but some are. And APKWS II happens to be a such.

 

If you do not want to fly Apache with APKWS II, then by no means do either one:

 

1) Fly only in missions dated to 2005.

2) Do not load APKWS II if flying in more modern day missions.

 

Then just be happy.

 

And yes, the APKWS project was part of the US Army initiated program to build a next generation smart guided light rockets (don't remember the program name now) and there were few participants. At the time the APKWS was with a warhead replacing guidance module, and it didn't work well as laser seeker was visible at nose like on many other competitors. That is why it got cancelled and soon restated with me name "APKWS II" and the new design was to make the laser guidance module as mid-part between existing warheads and existing rocket motors. And it became completely different thing than APKWS project was.

 

5 hours ago, DaemonPhobos said:

People seem to ignore that Apaches DID receive multiple software changes from 2005 to 2015, there are MPD pages that were renamed or added, button locations modified or removed, etc.

 

Irrelevant.

APKWS II compatibility is not dependable from any of those.

 

If any of those updates removed capability to use Hydra 70 rockets, then please tell as it would change the case that APKWS II is not possible.

 

 

5 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.

 

So when players find a more realistic benefit from a smart munition, it is bad?

 

Each M151 warhead is like a M72 rocket capable to penetrate about 250-400mm RHA. 

You hit with one on the APC and it is gone or you just killed the crew.

 

Hit one on the IFV, and same thing. 

Even a MBT from the rear or roof has no armor protection against it.

You destroy engines easily etc.

 

Now when you get a change to put a laser dot on target and put a single M151 in it, you become a monster.

 

Don't think that it replaces the Maverick or Hellfire, because it doesn't.

As those things are required when MBT turns toward you.

 

And current damage modeling and AI doesn't make anything to deny you utilizing APKWS II rockets, or mavericks or Hellfire.

 

We don't even have realistic maverick modeled and likely not even hellfire.

 

But you give players a way to load themselves to the theets and they do it.

A-10C was seen overloaded, even today often.

F/A-18C pilots load crazy amount of AMRAAM's. 

 

So what when the simulator support air quake and recklessly flying and fighting. No one cares if they eject or they die...

You do not care because it is respawn and back up again.

[MRTX]

To be honest i still try to get what this discussion is even about.

 

If you think that the APKWS is unrealistic for the block of Apache you're flying, just don't use it and stop acting like its shere existence does you any harm or reduce your immersion.

 

And for those who like APKWS, great have some fun with it.

 

In theory you could walk up to any working AH-64D in this world, and slap some APKWS in its hydra pods and let it rip. I'm just talking about the technical possbility of doing so regardles of air worthyness or other safety aspects.

[M1Combat]

"He is using dark mode."

 

that is correct :).

 

 

That said... Is it the case on this post?  I've pasted with "plain text"...

[M1Combat]

"If you think that the APKWS is unrealistic for the block of Apache you're flying, just don't use it and stop acting like its shere existence does you any harm or reduce your immersion.

 

And for those who like APKWS, great have some fun with it."

 

Yeah...  

 

But it's just not that simple.

 

PLease again let me clarify...  If ED included APKWS EXACTLY as you suggest...  I'd be fine with it.

 

 

However...

 

Should ED update the Apache with all other updates that would have been on all airframes (or just a specific one since they actually simulate SPECIFIC airframes) at 2015 when they got APKWS??  Because...  If we're simulating APKWS on the Apache (please pay attention to the word simulate and how ED means it...  and no I don't mean in context of the WWI split in tech or their plans for BS3) then we would need to have a known aircraft function/patch/build/hardware level in 2015 that got the APKWS.  That's a different aircraft than the one we're getting.  It may have the same S/N...  but it will have received some updates between the model ED plans to implement and the model that "actually" had APKWS slapped onto it.

 

See...  We all understand your arguments.

 

We do....  alright fine, yeah...  there's likely a few people who don't....  but whatever...

 

But...  You POINT OF VIEW is the problem that makes people argue against your suggestions.

 

It's not the validity that we could hang an APKWS rack on a technical and fire them in such a way that they would loft into the area where they can track a lased target and hit it...

 

That doesn't matter.

 

What matters is that ED has a point of view on the subject.

 

Their POV is that they simulate a specific (or close to it...  I think we all need to sit back for just a sec and appreciate that ED is willing to do the BS3 style stuff "anywhere") aircraft and what it actually was.  Not what it became.  Not what it could be.  Not what was "technically possible if you happen to have had an APKWS around to hang off the pylon at some point" or some other mental gymnastics that allow you to validate in YOUR mind that this "should be given to us".

 

 

You are missing the point.  You.  Not me.  Not ED.  Not anyone in this thread that is arguing this way.

 

It is you.

 

You want something to be that is beside the way that ED approach simulation.

 

I appreciate both approaches.  Honestly.

 

But...  You keep bitching about "I want this and ED sucks because "it's possible and doable and WHA WHA WHA!!!!"...  

 

Well...

 

 

Will we get BS3 or not?  You MFers sit here and moan and complain about "Well you did this with your BS3 plans...  Just give us APKWS on the apache WAH WAH WAH!!!! and al lof a sudden ED says you no what...  No.  No BS3.  We are NOT opening that can... 

 

Because entitled people like YOU don't know when to STFU.

 

Go with the flow folks.

 

You're playing with fire.

[MRTX]

Seems like somebody already had their daily dose of salt.

[3WA]

23 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

"He is using dark mode."

 

that is correct :).

 

 

That said... Is it the case on this post?  I've pasted with "plain text"...

No. the problem was half your post was just solid black lines.   Unreadable.  But I figured out that if I selected  them, they became visible.

[Northstar98]

On 4/23/2021 at 8:41 PM, Fri13 said:

You lost all your arguments.

 

Whatever helps you sleep at night, I mean from your track record in this thread, it's hardly surprising you'd say something as disingenuous as that.

 

Ironic that you accuse me of grasping at straws... I mean Fri, if you're going to say things like this, it might help if reality agreed.

 

Quote

You were pointed how you twist things with circular reasoning

 

No, you just accused me of doing so, because you apparently don't understand what a straw man and a circular reasoning fallacy is, which is why you misuse them, and didn't explain how they were so.

 

See Fri, it's very easy to throw around logical fallacies inappropriately - it's another thing to actually use them correctly.

 

Quote

and finally when you notice that you admitted being totally wrong

 

I did no such thing. What are you even talking about? I mean, it's one thing just being dishonest, disingenuous or arguing in bad faith, but this is honestly borderline delusional - completely orthogonal to reality.

 

Quote

you had no other way than do ad hominem. You call me the flat earth supoorter and a pigeon.

 

Well, then you can add ad hominem to the list of fallacies you misuse and don't understand.

 

If I had merely insulted you and used that to discredit your argument, then it would be an ad hominem. But that's not what I did? I gave a genuine refutation of your points - so it isn't an ad hominem. This should help.

 

I wasn't even addressing any of your points in that instance, I wasn't even making or refuting an argument - I was making an observation, and I'd argue an accurate one. The way you argue does seem to bear some similarity: you like to completely twist around what I'm saying, constantly misrepresenting it; throw around logical fallacies, using them inappropriately in the process and then make disingenuous remark after disingenuous remark - I would say it does bear some similarity.

 

I'm not accusing you of being a flat earther, I'm comparing how you've gone about arguing - I'm making an analogy.

 

Same for the playing chess with a pigeon; I'm not literally accusing you of being a pigeon, it's a figure of speech, an analogy.

 

I'm comparing the exchange to playing chess with a pigeon: throughout this you have stuck your fingers in your ears, constantly misrepresenting what's being said, instead making your own arguments up and arguing against those while pretending they're my arguments (which is what a straw man actually is) and now you're claiming victory...

 

Yes, the pigeon chess analogy does seem to bear some striking resemblance...

 

Quote

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

 

It would help if you actually read it and understand what I was saying.

 

Quote

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

 

See above.

 

Quote

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

 

I think I could Fri... You're the one who twisted it over and over and over again. Pretending I was making an argument I wasn't.

 

In fact, what is my "circa xxxx" claim? Because you haven't gotten it right once. You presumably did that on purpose, because it's much easier to attack an argument you made up and one I didn't make.

 

(This by the way, is a pitch perfect definition of a straw man).

 

Quote

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

 

Again, you twisted my argument over and over again, you had to misconstrue my entire position over and over again. I find this level of disingenuousness quite frankly staggering.

 

Quote

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

 

When did I talk about that? Oh yes, when I said that making it so ED integrates new weapons and systems 

 

Quote

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

 

Oh yes, my whole argument was a personal attack, I definitely wasn't writing overly long responses addressing the points you made.

 

I mean Fri, if you're going to tell porkies, at least try and be convincing with them.

 

I mean I accuse you (accurately) of misconstruing my arguments, and now you're misconstruing the entire debate. How dishonest are you exactly?

 

Quote

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.

 

Oh yes, because that's definitely going on.

 

No I find your arguments confusing as they seem to attack an argument I never made, and you just refuse to accept that, when I've made it clear from the start. I haven't been putting 

 

Quote

You can laugh, but it doesn't change that you couldn't reason.

 

You are honestly the last person who can comment on reasoning based on your performance here. Your reasoning is ignore, deflect, twist, and throw in a misused logical fallacy.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Northstar98

[M1Combat]

17 minutes ago, MRTX said:

Seems like somebody already had their daily dose of salt.

 

If referring to me...

 

Nah...

 

But go read the BS3 thread.  It's the same as this one.

 

With the same people.

 

Asking for the same thing.

 

In the same way.

 

Using the same logic.

 

but there's a difference...

 

And that is that ED was NICE ENOUGH to say "alright...  maybe we'll bend the rules just this once so RedFor can have a cool heli..."...

 

 

And now you see where it got them.

 

EXACTLY where MANY people said it would...

 

With the SAME MFing people doing the SAME MFing thing...  Again...  

 

So...

 

Where does it stop?

 

Do we ask for lasers on the boats?  we're there...

Do we ask for Crysis soldiers?  We'll get there...

Do we ask for prox rounds for tanks?  We're there...

Do we ask for SuperSonic Airforce 1?  We're there...

 

No...  What ED does is say you know what...  we tried to be nice in ONE way in the interests of fun and you MFers turned around and smacked us in the face with it so FU...  No.  No BS3...  No APKWS on the Apache...  No.

 

good day sir....

 

 

 

 

Yeah...  that's the future of entitled little brats whining about this stuff.

 

Thanks :).

[3WA]

Lol, someone's losing the argument.

 

When you start screaming, calling people MF'ers, and quoting things no one ever said, no one is going to take you seriously anymore.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[MRTX]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb M1Combat:

No...  What ED does is say you know what...  we tried to be nice in ONE way in the interests of fun and you MFers turned around and smacked us in the face with it so FU...  No.  No BS3...  No APKWS on the Apache...  No.

 

Are you implying that the community is responsible for the development hold of the BS3 simply by requesting features to be added? 

[DaemonPhobos]

I can understand the reasoning of why you want the inclusion of APKWS into the module, however, I will never, absolutely never agree that it will be a realistic feature to be implemented, I can keep arguing for an eternity, because I find this quite entertaining, or at least until a mod decides to close the thread for how ridiculous it has become.

Logical fallacies, inaccuracies are ok, but at least let's try to avoid personal confrontation and ad hominem.

 

First, minor details, the M151 warhead is a HE warhead, minimal penetration, LAW equivalent warhead would be the obscure M247 HEAT warhead, not authorized for AH-64D, but apparently authorized for AH-1F at least in 2001, this one has similar capabilities to a M72 LAW warhead on a hydra rocket motor.

 

As I said before, a 2005 apache longbow still has the same authorized stores in 2015, it has to go separation tests and airworthiness qualifications in order to be an approved loadout for the aircraft, therefore, falling into the realm of fantasy.

Technically possible, yes.

Realistic, absolutely not.

Besides, are you going to be ok remembering that the APKWS came when Apaches had TACSAT/DAMA, VUIT, mode 5 iff, different MPD pages and all of those things we aren't getting? That we are just getting a fictional glimpse of an aircraft in the future?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 23, 2021 by DaemonPhobos
Cuz I want

[3WA]

Well, for one thing, BS3 is a TOTALLY different argument.  I've said many times, I have always considered that module as somewhat of a fantasy to begin with.  The Black Shark was never put into service.  It was an experiment ( I think only 12 were made ), and each helicopter differed from the next one, some VASTLY.  In the end, the last few made were torn apart and made into Ka-52s.  And BS3 is an educated guess at what the Black Shark would have eventually been made into had it been put into service.  Though, personally, I'm sure it would have received RWR and FLIR to bring it up to the same standards as Western helicopters, like the Apache.

[DaemonPhobos]

I believe everything we can tell regarding to the BS3 is pure speculation, the are no flight, weapons or maintenance manuals available online for it, it could be a 100% accurate model to a specific version of it, or absolute guesswork.

[3WA]

17 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

I believe everything we can tell regarding to the BS3 is pure speculation, the are no flight, weapons or maintenance manuals available online for it, it could be a 100% accurate model to a specific version of it, or absolute guesswork.

Supposedly, if I remember right, all the info came from Kamov ( stuff never made public ), and pilots that were familiar with it.  It was a simulation of one of the real copters ( or so we were told ), but it was just one of the many variational experiments.  They are trying to guess what it would have been by looking at the Ka-52, and making educational guesses.  As far as I know, maybe Kamov is still guiding their hand.  It will be a better balance to the Apache when it gets the iglas, but the Apache is still going to rule the land.  It's even near suicide going up against AI Apaches in game now, with BS2.  The 4 Cobras in the "Battle" mission are near impossible to defeat with 1 BS2 and AI wingman.  The Shkval is so bad at locking air targets that you end up giving up, throwing switch to manual targeting, and just blast like crazy at them with the 30mm and maybe even a few S-8's, hoping to damage them enough that they have to retreat.  That's why we are so desperate for igla's on the BS.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[M1Combat]

Suit yourself in dismissing my point by whatever grounds you'd like :).

 

I don't care. 

 

The point stands whether you dismiss it or not :).

[DaemonPhobos]

I wouldn't be able to tell for sure as I don't have data on the real KA-50, balance is not a friend for a simulation, but since the KA-50 by itself is kind of an experimental aircraft, the limits for realism are wider, Iglas are an acceptable weapon if they are based on real documentation, that said, they have 5 km range at most depending on the version, and they may take a pylon.

Apaches with FCR Air targeting mode, FLIR, DTV, laser warning system, CMWS and direct trayectory hellfires may be still too powerful for an enemy.

 

 

 

[3WA]

2 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

Apaches with FCR Air targeting mode, FLIR, DTV, laser warning system, CMWS and direct trayectory hellfires may be still too powerful for an enemy.

Lol, exactly.

[M1Combat]

34 minutes ago, MRTX said:

 

Are you implying that the community is responsible for the development hold of the BS3 simply by requesting features to be added? 

 

No...  More that b******g and moaning about adding features from mental gymnastically derived justifications is going to get old to the ED dev crew and it's not unfathomable that, after reading this thread and the mirror thread regarding the BS3, this has the clear potential to piss them off and make them decide it's just not worth opening the can of worms that MANY people told them they would be opening should they include non-verifiably accurate weapons on one module.

 

Ie...  "playing with fire"

 

There is potential to burn the damn house down.

 

Feel free to dismiss this point based on my use of the word "damn".

[M1Combat]

12 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

balance is not a friend for a simulation, but since the KA-50 by itself is kind of an experimental aircraft, the limits for realism are wider

 

 

 

 

I whole heartedly agree.

 

But...

 

The apache is not that animal (and I understand that's exactly what you're saying) and in THIS case...  what seems to be happening is that the same people that made the case for the BS3 based on the fact that it has wider limits relative to realism are making the case for the same thing in the apache but based on completely different grounds...

 

Grounds they said in that thread they wouldn't use...  

 

Because people pointed out to them in that thread how they (and ED) would be opening a can of worms that could not later be closed if they start running down the path to fantasy land...

 

 

Now look...

 

At us...

 

Trying to get ED on the path to fantasy land :)...

 

 

Wow...  It's like we could see the future back then...

 

Maybe this time travel APKWS implementation isn't so far fetched after all...

Edited April 23, 2021 by M1Combat

[3WA]

14 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

 

No...  More that b******g and moaning about adding features from mental gymnastically derived justifications is going to get old to the ED dev crew and it's not unfathomable that, after reading this thread and the mirror thread regarding the BS3, this has the clear potential to piss them off and make them decide it's just not worth opening the can of worms that MANY people told them they would be opening should they include non-verifiably accurate weapons on one module.

 

Ie...  "playing with fire"

 

There is potential to burn the damn house down.

 

Feel free to dismiss this point based on my use of the word "damn".

I dismiss you, because you are now WAY off course, and obviously not listening to what the other side is saying.  Now your just spewing BS and venom.

Probably trying to get the thread shut down, because you are losing the argument so hard.

Edited April 23, 2021 by 3WA

[M1Combat]

Sorry but I don't have the time to go through the BS3 thread to pick out every justification that was used for the BS3 to make the case there...

 

A small synopsis is...

The aircraft was headed in that direction when production ceased.

Redfor needs the love.

There are pics with sharks with all the things we want (maybe).

The shark is already a bit of a fantasy.

We would never use this line of reasoning for another aircraft that doesn't fit these criteria.

 

 

Well well...

 

Here we are...

 

With the same people arguing for the same thing (the can of worms bit...  I get that APKWS isn't a russian A2A weapon on a third pylon that was likely never actually in the air)

 

 

Here we are...  eating that same can of worms...

 

That was opened by the same people feeding it to us right now.

 

Yeah...  Some people actually can see the future it appears :).

 

Well done folks :).

 

[M1Combat]

15 minutes ago, 3WA said:

I dismiss you, because you are now WAY off course, and obviously not listening to what the other side is saying.  Now your just spewing BS and venom.

Probably trying to get the thread shut down, because you are losing the argument so hard.

 

 

I'm not surprised in the least.

 

Also...  Attempting to get a thread shut down is not a tactic I'm willing to use.  My 1st Amendment may not legally apply to everyone but I apply it to everyone.  I may not agree with what you say...  but I'll certainly defend your right to say it.  That's just how I roll.

 

 

That said :)...

 

Feel free to justify dismissing me any way you like sir :).

 

That's clearly your MO.  Justifying anything you like in any way you like.

 

The BS3 thread laid the groundwork of that understanding and this one polishes it off.

 

 

I am not losing an argument.

 

 

I disagree with you.

 

 

We see the subject from two different points of view.  there is no right or wrong here sir.

 

 

There are differing points of view that justify what each of the sides is willing to accept is the right way to move forwards.

 

In the case of the BS3 ED agreed with you (and me BTW...) based on various reasons that are particular to the BS3.

 

In the case of the apache...  those things don't exist.

 

 

Which is verified by the fact that you're attempting to use other means to justify the inclusion of your requested APKWS.

 

 

I'm sorry friend...  That fish don't bite on this aircraft...

Edited April 24, 2021 by M1Combat

[Kev2go]

11 hours ago, DaemonPhobos said:

The real problem I see when integrating APKWS is having a 2015's weapon on a 2005 aircraft.

It's true, the aircraft could have carried it, could... but it didn't, because APKWS did not exist at that time, in fact back in 2005 the program switched from general dynamics to BAE APKWS II because it performed poorly on testing according to some citations.

 

People seem to ignore that Apaches DID receive multiple software changes from 2005 to 2015, there are MPD pages that were renamed or added, button locations modified or removed, etc.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

we have more of a 2010 Apache. ( see the discussion regarding 2002 manual being original publication but having inserted changes to later dates)  As discussed we have some features listed that would not have been added till 2008-2010ish.

 

Also for contrast I do have seen a AH64D block 3 ( before rebranded as AH64E a year later) manual from 2012. From a  purely avionics/ software point of view  ( ignoring any physical changes to engines etc) an early AH64E may as well just be a Ah64D block 2 with level 4 UAV control capability, and some minor changes to comm's/signal processing, and a more smartly integrated CMWS ( no physical panel anymore) 

 

Considering AH64E succeeded the Ah64D , and tha Guardian is replacing the D's, I don't see legacy D models getting any notable upgrades, especially since all D's today are being gradually converted to E's.

 

Also to note APKWS would never replace hellfire's, nor was it meant to

 

APKWS doesnt have as long range as hellfires nor are they suitable for tank busting. They work great against unarmored or lightly armored targets, but playing with the A10 and Harrier they are unsuitable ( even with spam) in killing main battle tanks, or any hardened targets. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Kev2go

[DaemonPhobos]

hace 1 hora, Kev2go dijo:

 

 

we have more of a 2010 Apache. ( see the discussion regarding 2002 manual being original publication but having inserted changes to later dates)  As discussed we have some features listed that would not have been added till 2008-2010ish.

 

Also for contrast I do have seen a AH64D block 3 ( before rebranded as AH64E a year later) manual from 2012. From a  purely avionics/ software point of view  ( ignoring any physical changes to engines etc) an early AH64E may as well just be a Ah64D block 2 with level 4 UAV control capability, and some minor changes to comm's/signal processing, and a more smartly integrated CMWS ( no physical panel anymore) 

 

Considering AH64E succeeded the Ah64D , and tha Guardian is replacing the E's, i dont see legacy D models getting any notable upgrades, especially since D's today are being gradually converted to E's.

 

Also to note APKWS would never replace hellfire's, nor was it meant to

 

APKWS doesnt have as long range as hellfires nor are they suitable for tank busting. They work great against unarmored or lightly armored targets, but playing with the A10 and Harrier they are unsuitable ( even with spam) in killing main battle tanks, or any hardened targets. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yup

You are right about that

But even the AH-64E/D block 3 from August 31 2012 wasn't cleared for APKWS use, check page 456 on authorized rockets.

For example, LBHMMS and sighting systems student handouts show MPD pages similar to early AH-64Es, but they are Lot 11 64D aircraft, the terrain profiling modes in FCR have yellow and red color, the RPT page has changed in name to the MAIL page, etc.

For example, the WPN page shown in EDs pictures doesn't show the Flare counters above the Chaff status window.

It is still uncertain which version they decided to model.

Some later delta Apaches have an extra center pedestal panel for the Laser pointer, BFT and Strobe light too which ours doesn't have.

We can't also see the Flare and manual program dispense switches in the cyclic.

There is no way to tell for sure.

2005 to 2008 is a good conservative number as of now, most likely towards 2008, but it would require ASPI too.

But it's also true that D Apaches had notable software modifications around 2011 according to multiple documents.

I would be OK with APKWS if it atleast existed by the time the aircraft was flying, like 2012 or something like that, not necessarily 2015, but something credible.

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by DaemonPhobos
Details