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

[DaemonPhobos]

Also, we don't have the weight and moment/100 data for the APKWS that would normally be loaded into the PERF WT page.

That would come really handy too if we want a very detailed simulation assuming ED decides to model it.

However, you are right that I went too far comparing the hellfire with the APKWS, there are nothing alike, the point was more to show that it would become a standard weapon in the aircraft that would be anachronistic.

Edited April 24, 2021 by DaemonPhobos

[Kev2go]

52 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

 

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.

 

 

 

. For the record i wasn't implying the Ah64E was using APKWS in 2012. Sorry if it came off that way.

 

Interesting that the AH64D's got them first rather than the Ah64E's. 

 

But regarding integration i think this post nails it on the head.

 

 

On 4/22/2021 at 6:19 PM, Raptor9 said:

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.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Kev2go

[DaemonPhobos]

hace 17 minutos, Kev2go dijo:

 

. For the record i wasn't implying the Ah64E was using APKWS in 2012. Sorry if it came off that way.

 

Interesting that the AH64D's got them first rather than the Ah64E's. 

 

But regarding integration i think this post nails it on the head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, you also made me realize something.

I was checking about the earliest date I see the CMWS being mentioned, it comes from the miller study guide from 2009...

Data management systems maintenance student handouts from may 2008 don't mention it all, and that is strange considering It makes mention of every single Line replaceable unit in the aircraft.

It's quite possible that your figure for 2009 is actually correct.

I'm actually quite intrigued now, I could almost swear I saw an article about Apaches deploying with ASPI around 2008.

Time will tell.

Edited April 24, 2021 by DaemonPhobos

[Kev2go]

3 hours ago, M1Combat said:

 

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...

 

 

cough F16CM block 50 using  lau88+ triple mavs , cough, AGm88 on stations 3 and 7 ( which can carry but not shoot due to lacking the wiring) , cough now Agm154 on what was supposed to be a circa 2007  ( which at that time frame would have been software tape 4.2 or 4.3 cough )  now turns into a tape 5.1 hybrid 

 

So perhaps apkws on a longbow  isn't really that fantasy in retrospect, just maybe somewhat anarchonistic, but that is assuming there arent any truely substantial additions/ changes by 2015 that a virtual pilot wouldnt notice in a 2010ish apache.

 

I mean this isn't necessarily to say that because the F16's isnt such a purist aircraft that the Ah64D shouldnt be, but rather to point out in contrast to certain fixed wing modules.

Edited April 24, 2021 by Kev2go

[Tippis]

6 hours ago, M1Combat said:

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.

Of course it matters.

 

If we are truly going to get a correct recreation — a simulation, if you will — of a given platform, it matters a great deal whether you give that platform its actual full capabilities, irrespective of whether those had been realised, had materialised, or had been authorised or not. If we skip capabilities that the platform have, we don't get a true representation of the platform. it's that simple.

 

Thus: don't enshrine doctrine into a module because this creates a fake lack of capability. Don't restrict later developments that happened when unrelated systems came online, because this yields the same result: a fake lack of capability. Instead, make sure to include the quirks and issues that gave rise to that doctrine (e.g. exhaust ingestion from badly placed missiles), and make sure to include and expand (or just fix) the functionality where units and stores can be restricted by timeframe.

 

This is how you get the most accurate representation of the unit you want to simulate.

[vigilante87]

Hesitant to get involved in this thread....but....why do you all want the APKWS so bad? If you've answered that already somewhere in this post, my bad....I'm not reading through all of them. Just a quick skim over reveals a lot of nonsense. 

While laser guided rockets would be sweet, that's what you have hellfire's for . I preferring to manually guide my rockets myself.

 

[3WA]

Well, the conversation mainly boiled down to whether they should be allowed on the production year of the DCS Apache (now very much in question ).

And since the DCS Apache seems to be somewhat of a hybrid of a couple of years, there was huge debate.  People like me debated it should be regulated by whatever year the mission is being hosted, because as far as my side of the debate can tell, APKWS can be used by any aircraft as long as it can carry a Hydra pod.  No update to software or cockpit is needed.

I think most of those against it play on the servers and are afraid it will be spammed to death ( can see their point, but 90% of people don't play online ).  And besides, the jet jockeys spam AMRAAMS everywhere anyway.  Also, some people are deeply into American doctrine of whether it was ever allowed or not.

I'm like you.  I prefer manual rockets usually, as I like to use them close in ( 20 meters or less ) just like a harder hitting gun.  I can see APKWS would be good if you were taking on something like a SPAAS, and had the time to lock a laser on it.  Caught by surprise, you're only chance would be a fast manual shot.  Though that's doubtful in the simple, flat DCS terrain.

Edited April 24, 2021 by 3WA

[DaemonPhobos]

On the other hand, I would prefer APKWS over any other type of rocket, because I like newer systems than older ones, it's not like I'm shooting down on the APKWS because I hate the weapon, I like overpowered stuff.

If i guided myself for what I want, this would be DCS: AH-64E by eagle dynamics, complete with APKWS and all the bells and whistles.

However, I do not like having aircraft that take parts from different eras, I would avoid it as much as possible, sometimes the information from an era is lacking and you have to improvise with different documents, and I understand that, it's an all or nothing situation.

However, purposefully implementing something on it that didn't exist back when the aircraft was flying does not seem to be a serious simulation of the aircraft.

This is even worse than the LAU-88 and triple mavs on the viper, since atleast the LAU existed from before, and we have no info if the 34-1 list it as an available store, so we cannot tell if it's possible or not.

 

You would be flying an aircraft with 2009 systems using a 2015 weapon, there is no change in that.

Unless ED manages to bring the aircraft to a later version.

[DaemonPhobos]

hace 1 hora, vigilante87 dijo:

Hesitant to get involved in this thread....but....why do you all want the APKWS so bad? If you've answered that already somewhere in this post, my bad....I'm not reading through all of them. Just a quick skim over reveals a lot of nonsense. 

While laser guided rockets would be sweet, that's what you have hellfire's for . I preferring to manually guide my rockets myself.

 

 

If I had to take a guess, it is because it's a numerous, accurate, powerful weapon that makes the rockets actually effective against point targets at longer ranges.

See a lightly armored vehicle, no need for hellfires, just send a SAL guided AGR, you can clear 16 enemy vehicles per pod loaded, versus 4 for the hellfires.

 

Of course, it's a massive game changer, tactics would be developed for them, both defensive and offensive, other helos would be most likely completely overwhelmed by them like a nest of angry bees spamming at them.

12 vikhr missiles? Iglas? Good, Get blown into non-existence by a 64 guided rocket salvo, acquired by a 360 degree FCR radar with with 8 km range, and lased by a 36x zoom FOV FLIR sensor.

Of course some people is going to like that..

But...

The date where this weapon was introduced, some MPD pages were pretty much the same as an early AH-64E, not a 2009 apache anymore.

Some new systems were added, some were removed.

i know for sure that the ASE page is different, the RPT page is completely different, the CMWS may or may not have HFI, the WPN page is different, the TSD page too, the COM most likely too.

Is this still a realistic simulation of an aircraft?

I have an opinion, and I don't like mixing new with old, but you have to take yours based on what you read here.

 

Notes:

a 2002 Apache (or anything with an appropriate rocket pod) can carry a 2015 APKWS, no software changes required, provided they had existed in the same era.

A saw a real pilot telling that there are no software changes related to Rocket engagements for the APKWS, so I guess, same rocket steering cursor, same CCIP reticle, same WPN icons.

The real debate here comes if it should be integrated in regards to historical accuracy or the theoretical capability of the older aircraft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by DaemonPhobos

[3WA]

54 minutes ago, DaemonPhobos said:

12 vikhr missiles? Iglas? Good, Get blown into non-existence by a 64 guided rocket salvo, acquired by a 360 degree FCR radar with with 8 km range, and lased by a 36x zoom FOV FLIR sensor.

Pretty sure my iglas could reach him before he could get me.  Vhiker, he would kill me before my worthless shkval could ever get a lock on him.

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, DaemonPhobos said:

If I had to take a guess, it is because it's a numerous, accurate, powerful weapon that makes the rockets actually effective against point targets at longer ranges.

See a lightly armored vehicle, no need for hellfires, just send a SAL guided AGR, you can clear 16 enemy vehicles per pod loaded, versus 4 for the hellfires.

Now that you mention it, that is a good argument for it as well…

 

It would probably be less so if regular rockets actually did their job properly, but yeah… damage model changes are a looooong time coming.

[Northstar98]

6 minutes ago, Tippis said:

Now that you mention it, that is a good argument for it as well…

 

It would probably be less so if regular rockets actually did their job properly, but yeah… damage model changes are a looooong time coming.

 

Well, that definitely needs sorting regardless, and it's not just damage modelling of vehicles, but also things like a better simulation of fragmentation and other warhead types.

[Tippis]

Yes. At least it's on some kind of horizon now… 2028 can't come around fast enough.

[DaemonPhobos]

hace 5 horas, 3WA dijo:

Pretty sure my iglas could reach him before he could get me.  Vhiker, he would kill me before my worthless shkval could ever get a lock on him.

 

IIRC igla had around 5 km max range when fired in the correct mode on the ground version.

Interestingly, the APKWS has a 5 km max launch envelope with 3 to 4 being the optimum engagement range (for ground targets, not helos, however, that F-16 test shooting down drones with it...)

Of course an air to ground rocket may not be as effective and maneuverable as a dedicated surface to air missile.

However they are laser guided, the igla is IR guided, the Apache has a lot of flares.

And believe me, the FCR is always going to acquire you before you can get to visually ID the 64D.

Chances are, depending on their maneuverability, the BS may get owned with or without iglas.

 

[=4c=Nikola]

10 hours ago, vigilante87 said:

Hesitant to get involved in this thread....but....why do you all want the APKWS so bad? If you've answered that already somewhere in this post, my bad....I'm not reading through all of them. Just a quick skim over reveals a lot of nonsense. 

While laser guided rockets would be sweet, that's what you have hellfire's for . I preferring to manually guide my rockets myself.

 

 And why do you care whether I want APKWS available for a platform I bought license for? It's not like you're losing something in that process.

 

You see, that's the real problem behind all this APKWS nonsense: I do not prefer the same things you do prefer.

[vigilante87]

1 hour ago, =4c=Nikola said:

 And why do you care whether I want APKWS available for a platform I bought license for? It's not like you're losing something in that process.

 

You see, that's the real problem behind all this APKWS nonsense: I do not prefer the same things you do prefer.

I gotcha man, no worries. I'm all for APKWS being on the apache so we all can use them in whatever manner us consumers find appealing/useful, but I'm not going to burn the forest down to get it....if that makes sense? I'm just happy we are getting the apache and I'll use what we get and will be stoked regardless.  

[shagrat]

On 4/23/2021 at 1:16 PM, Desert Fox said:

 

That's really the core: you can't. At least in MP you can't. Take some public 80s themed server for example (yeah folks... way off topic here, wrong timeframe blablablablatwisttwist), night mission, a small group plans an attack with Mi-8 (no NVG in RL but can't be restricted in sim -> dude is "self restricting") putting up illumination rockets (on a convoy maybe), Su-25A and the upcoming Mi-24 (which in RL don't have GPS or NVG in that timeframe) are to use the illumination to run a well timed attack. The group invests some decent amount of time here in planning and preparation to get that done.

 

Then some random comes in on the site, running NS430 and NVGs effectively negating the extra challenge night time brings (because you can't restrict those as a mission designer/server admin) and instantly kills the fun for the whole group. Like half an hour or hour right into the bin for those. Similar can be experienced in more modern time frames where some dude with non-realistic systems single-handedly wipes out a tank battalion in front of folks who "restricted themselves" to a proper loadout and system use. You experience thus a few times, realize it's a waste of time taking part in such a MP environment and make a decision.

 

The result can be seen on the server browser: lots of open servers which are basically king of the hill 6Mav9CBU105 fests and locked up realism servers you only get access to by joining a squadron or being hand selected via interviews. In between this, there are a few servers which rely on heavy scripting plus all time monitoring and administration to somehow enforce at least some realism. It's literally enforcing the extremes: gamers servers and super-realism servers with few shades in between.

 

That's a direct result of putting in and not restricting fantasy stuff and frankensteining, you can't "gentleman agree" on a public server to "restrict". And it's really killing MP for many, either driving them off completely (interest in realism, no interest in squadrons or gated communities) or into said gated communities.

 

"siMPLy DoNT UsE iT!!11!1!!" is a cake.

That's why there is the option to restrict servers by password to a like minded group... Simply host your own night time 80ies mission for your small group and carry out your plans? 

Public servers will always suffer from these issues, as they usually attract and are hosted to attract more casual players.

Maybe we can get a more detailed system to restrict gear and equipment for server hosting, but what currently happens is a small group aggressively asking ED to remove/restrict/eliminate weapons, equipment and settings, based on their individual perception of "realism" (or preference).

From my point of view restrictions need to be an option, not the basis, as the more we restrict by design, the more we restrict creativity and the chance for interesting scenarios.

Just looking at Campaigns, like "Raven One" or "Rising Squall" that wouldn't be possible without options to create fictious scenarios and the necessary freedom for mission designers.

If these were optional for mission designers to limit/disable/restrict things if required, I am all for it, but we need a way to keep it more open and flexible if the mission/scenario benefits or simply the group playing the mission wants to.

We have seen these missed approaches of companies trying to enforce certain "ways to play" and they mostly failed miserably when the player base didn't agree with these restrictions. If this goes wrong in extremis it can effectively diminish a game.

Fine tuning options and settings is a good thing, enforcing limitations and restrictions for everyone, rarely is...

[Fri13]

On 4/24/2021 at 12:47 AM, 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"...

 

Not a problem when using plain text. If text is copied and pasted in rich form either way is the user setting a bright or dark, it will as well copy the backround and text colors that looks normal, but it will look odd then to others who have opposite. This is why the quote box function removes the formatting by default. 

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, shagrat said:

We have seen these missed approaches of companies trying to enforce certain "ways to play" and they mostly failed miserably when the player base didn't agree with these restrictions. If this goes wrong in extremis it can effectively diminish a game.

Fine tuning options and settings is a good thing, enforcing limitations and restrictions for everyone, rarely is...

 

Support all weapons on the vehicle that it technically can use, and then let the mission designers decide what filters they apply in their missions, and module maker will then go and make official loadouts as they see to fit, and leave players and designers itself to make own ones with just limitation for technical possibility. If someone wants to have a time limited loadouts or vehicles, then they keep it and if someone doesn't, they can disable such filters. 

 

Everyone would be happy as simulator would act like a simulator with realistic technical capabilities and limitations without politics or religion. 

[Fri13]

 

No matter what AH-64D Block II Lot version they choose, it will be In-Service for US Army in 2021. Even if they would go and choose AH-64A, it would still be in service in 2020. The AH-64D Block I models would have likely ceased to exist somewhere 2018-2019 period as being upgraded to Block III status. 

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Fri13

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

No matter what AH-64D Block II Lot version they choose, it will be In-Service for US Army in 2021. Even if they would go and choose AH-64A, it would still be in service in 2020. The AH-64D Block I models would have likely ceased to exist somewhere 2018-2019 period as being upgraded to Block III status. 

 

That's not what that chart says. The chart is showing the remanufacture of the airframes themselves. There are no longer any AH-64As or AH-64D Block 1's in operational service in the US Army; there hasn't been for years.

 

Further, as it pertains to the APKWS discussion, there was zero time period overlap of any avionics versions prior to the new 2012 manual being published, and the weapon system becoming operational in the fleet in 2015.  All AH-64D Block 2's were already upgraded beyond pre-2012 avionics versions before 2015.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Raptor9

[DaemonPhobos]

What raptor said is correct, and it's why I see APKWS integration as unrealistic.

By the time that weapon became operational, it's probable all Apaches had the new software, making possible the use of, for example, the AGM-114FA , 114L5, and the 114R.

Perhaps different radios, like the ARC-231, probably the APX-123 transponder instead of the 118, fuzed mode for the PNVS, they probably removed the obsolete ATHS, and other numerous upgrades that our aircraft won't be having, besides the obvious fact that some MPD pages are different.

 

It's not like a 2009 Apache stays like that forever, software changes constantly.

and of course, the APKWS wasn't just directly integrated on real Life Apaches instantly, it had to undergo testing before being considered as an authorized load for the aircraft.

As much as I like the APKWS, it's impossible not to admit that it would be historically inaccurate, anachronistic or unrealistic in some way.

 

 

 

 

 

[3WA]

8 hours ago, shagrat said:

Maybe we can get a more detailed system to restrict gear and equipment for server hosting

This is EXACTLY what you need.  Then, you can release what most people want, and those who want restrictions can make all the restrictions they want.  You need some kind of script language to do it, so  it can be very exact and cover everything in the World.

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

Support all weapons on the vehicle that it technically can use, and then let the mission designers decide what filters they apply in their missions, and module maker will then go and make official loadouts as they see to fit, and leave players and designers itself to make own ones with just limitation for technical possibility. If someone wants to have a time limited loadouts or vehicles, then they keep it and if someone doesn't, they can disable such filters. 

 

Everyone would be happy as simulator would act like a simulator with realistic technical capabilities and limitations without politics or religion. 

Yes.  This.  Exactly.

 

1 hour ago, DaemonPhobos said:

What raptor said is correct, and it's why I see APKWS integration as unrealistic.

By the time that weapon became operational, it's probable all Apaches had the new software, making possible the use of, for example, the AGM-114FA , 114L5, and the 114R.

Perhaps different radios, like the ARC-231, probably the APX-123 transponder instead of the 118, fuzed mode for the PNVS, they probably removed the obsolete ATHS, and other numerous upgrades that our aircraft won't be having, besides the obvious fact that some MPD pages are different.

 

It's not like a 2009 Apache stays like that forever, software changes constantly.

and of course, the APKWS wasn't just directly integrated on real Life Apaches instantly, it had to undergo testing before being considered as an authorized load for the aircraft.

 

As much as I like the APKWS, it's impossible not to admit that it would be historically inaccurate, anachronistic or unrealistic in some way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

See, here's the problem.  I don't disagree with everything your saying.  It's just that you are nitpicking it to death.  Yes, some of you are ex-military, pilots, people who have really studied these aircraft in-depth, and we understand.  But you have to realize that 99.9999% of the people here don't know any of this stuff, and most of them don't care.  They don't care about tiny differences in software versions.  They are coming in from Arma, War Thunder, different FPS games, Crysis, etc.

And they're thinking "oooh!  A cool new flight simulator!"  These are newbs who are just starting to learn about REAL aircraft.  There hasn't been a REAL flight sim since Open Falcon, so most of these 20 year old types probably have never even seen a real flight sim.

So, there's the other side of the extreme.  We don't want to lock these guys out, as DCS needs to sell to these people to keep on surviving.  I've played Open Falcon.  I come from Frugal's World, many years ago.  I love listening to you guys, and each day, I learn something new.  Very fascinating discussion about the APKWS, and I can see some of your points, but I also see the other side that wants to allow it.  I think this is one of those things that should be allowed because there is no set time in this World.  I could host missions in 2035 if I wanted to (hopefully, I'll have my new prosthetic body by then).  By that time, APKWS would be on everything, or have long been replaced, and I would be flying relics of a past age.  APKWS does not need Software, or any kind of change to the cockpit, etc.  Therefore, anything that can carry a hydra pod, in a time period beyond when APKWS was released, should be able to carry it.

There needs to be a scripting language set up for servers, so that they can totally lock out anything that is not realistic.

Also, if your going to do something that is unrealistic, like the 6 mavs on the Falcon, on stations that can't handle them, there needs to be check marks in the options to guide the new people into understanding that this is not realistic, and it should be an option, that by default is not checked, so they start out realistically, and get used to realism.  There really should be this in the A-10C, as carrying six mavericks on it is not realistic either ( It can do it, but you'll end up burning the tires with mavs 5 and 6).  Like your rudder trim option in the Ka-50.  Yeah, I know the Ka-50 doesn't really have a rudder trim, but I use it anyway because it is SOOO much better with it, and I personally think it is an oversight not to have been put in.

I hope DCS will stick as close to realism as possible ( I think Fri13 said it best above ), because I don't want things to go crazy, but I also want this game to sell to as many people as possible, and literally, one day, become a highly realistic ARMA sim (Air, Land, Sea).

 

In the end, I think DCS needs to completely open up modding.  Not lock it down like you are doing now.  Modding is something that REALLY sells a game / sim.  Just look at ARMA.  Modding is what sold that game.  Also, release your terrain editor, so people can make small, very detailed islands.  This will increase your sales of the helicopters.  The large lands right now are great for the jets, but lack complex, masking terrain for helicopter operations ( and also tanks and other vehicles for that matter ).  As for some people saying you guys are having problems with the Russians, War Thunder and other sims / games have modeled the Ka-52 with no complaints from anyone.  It would really be great to see that module come to life, as it will be the primary enemy of the Apache.

 

ED has to remember.  So far, I would say over 90% of people play this game offline, on their own computers.  On the servers, a lot of it is "air quake".  Very few players are on the reality servers, because to be a good pilot, you have to study diligently.  I've been flying the Shark since it came out, and even I still don't feel I know half the buttons in that cockpit.  I'm hoping to get the time to study it in detail one day.  Kind of shows the people who sales are going to.

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

 

That's not what that chart says. The chart is showing the remanufacture of the airframes themselves. There are no longer any AH-64As or AH-64D Block 1's in operational service in the US Army; there hasn't been for years.

 

Those are only the US Army orders and Boeing deals for new and upgraded models. The AH-64A's existed still in the time as they were used to a factory refreshed AH-64D's to export models. Where a foreign country buys a AH-64A and wanted upgrade package for it. 

 

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

Further, as it pertains to the APKWS discussion, there was zero time period overlap of any avionics versions prior to the new 2012 manual being published, and the weapon system becoming operational in the fleet in 2015. 

 

Based to Boeing contracts with the US Army, there were old Block 1 and Block 2 AH-64's with various Lots in use, even today. Even at the 2017 has Boeing started to upgrade old ones to AH-64E variant for US Army from the old versions, taking few years. And that doesn't even include the few newer lots. 

Not all helicopters become a new version in one year, and new manual is in use for everyone who doesn't have the corresponding variant in use in USA.

 

1 hour ago, Raptor9 said:

All AH-64D Block 2's were already upgraded beyond pre-2012 avionics versions before 2015.

 

So how has the Boeing managed to get the contracts for US Army to start delivering hundreds of old versions for upgrading if none existed?

[3WA]

Long edit to my above post.