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

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, DaemonPhobos said:

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

 

So why a AH-64D Block II with earliest Lot version from 2003 to 2020 shouldn't have the integration?

 

1 hour ago, DaemonPhobos said:

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.

 

Again, not all had the new software.... The upgrade programs were slow. They were in batches in various versions. Most were in few 5 year upgrade programs but not all. Some were left as is. 

 

1 hour ago, DaemonPhobos said:

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

 

That it what exactly happened for some. 2003 Apache did say as is in US Army Service for at least up to 2020 so last year. Not majority, but some did stay as such. 

 

1 hour ago, DaemonPhobos said:

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.

 

US Army did the testing already 2006-2007 before they cancelled the project in 2008 and Navy picked it up. Then US Army did again test it and confirmed it for fully functional as BAE has stated. 

 

1 hour ago, DaemonPhobos said:

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.

 

Just the opposite.

 

It is unrealistic and historically inaccurate to claim that no old AH-64D Block II variants has existed since 2012. And that APKWS II is not technically functional with any variant of the Apache, and that new software is required to use them (as they are not new weapons, just like BAE and US Army has reported).

And that doesn't even count the export versions of Apache because those are so wildly improved and changed compared to what US Army has received. 

[3WA]

1 hour ago, 3WA said:

Long edit to my above post.

Lol, I must REALLY confuse somebody.

[Raptor9]

@Fri13, I'm not going to bother quoting all the stuff you said, because honestly I'm not responding to your posts to convince you of anything.  I'm responding to refute the claims you are making so other DCS forum-users don't get the wrong info; because the claims you are making are outright false.  I have no doubt that your skills at Google are impressive, but digging up random charts and tidbits of info from the internet and subjecting them to your personal interpretation does not constitute "facts".

 

Regarding Fri13's responses to my previous post...When an AH-64A or AH-64D goes into the factory for remanufacture, those aircraft cease to be A and/or D models.  They are torn down to the frame, with most components removed, and the aircraft is built back up as a virtually new aircraft.  These are not simply "avionics upgrades", but a re-manufacture of the entire aircraft to either an entirely different Block, or a new model altogether.  These "multi-year upgrades" that Fri13 is referring to are NOT avionics upgrades, they are aircraft re-manufacture contracts.  Avionics upgrades are fielded to the fleet extremely rapidly, requiring just a few electronic boxes to be swapped out or uploaded with new software.

 

During the years when AH-64D Block 1's, AH-64D Block 2's, and AH-64E's all existed in the US Army fleet, avionics upgrades continued to occur across all 3 communities, in parallel, with upgrades occurring across each variant, in order to field new equipment or capabilities across the entire fleet.  However, the Block 1 software version that existed in 2015 did not exist in the 2002-2012 decade, nor did the equivalent Block 2 software version.  So regardless of what Apache variant any operational US Army battalion had in 2015 when APKWS was fielded (Block 1, 2, or 3/E-model), those software versions did NOT exist in the 2002-2012 decade when the 2002-dated manual was in use, and therefore there was NO time period overlap of the Apache variant that ED is making, and the APKWS operational timeline.  A weapon system in testing does not constitute a weapon that could be employed, no matter how much anyone wants to twist that fact to support their opinion.

 

Once again, I am not arguing for or against the APKWS, but Fri13's personal interpretations are inaccurate, as are his statements on this page regarding what Apache variants were in use and when.  The best example is the quote below:

 

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

It is unrealistic and historically inaccurate to claim that no old AH-64D Block II variants has existed since 2012.

 

It is actually 100% accurate, seeing as how every US Army Block 2 unit received new software in the 2012 to 2013 timeframe, which is why a new manual was released to go along with such upgrades.  Likewise, every US Army Block 1 unit also received new equivalent software in the same timeframe, but adapted to work within the limits of the Block 1 architecture.

 

@Fri13, respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about in this matter; I think it's from a misunderstanding of the Apache program and how the fleets are sustained.  I've been a part of the Apache program for almost two decades, I do know what I am talking about.

 

I'm not going to bother discussing any foreign avionics variants or timelines, because that is the Stinger conversation all over again.  Based on what ED has announced, they are making an AH-64D Apache, of US Army avionics/equipment configuration, between the years of 2002-2012.  I don't know what their reasons are for not having any current plans to include the APKWS in the module, but if I had to speculate, it is because the avionics version they are modelling had no longer been in US Army service for several years prior to the fielding of the APKWS.  That is a fact.

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, Raptor9 said:

@Fri13These "multi-year upgrades" that Fri13 is referring to are NOT avionics upgrades, they are aircraft re-manufacture contracts. 

 

Never it says that they are avionics upgrades.... 

They are based to the re-manufacture contracts from the Boeing about the changed they include. 

 

1 minute ago, Raptor9 said:

Once again, I am not arguing for or against the APKWS, but Fri13's personal interpretations are inaccurate, as are his statements on this page regarding what Apache variants were in use and when.  The best example is the quote below:

 

You can sue Boeing then for lying to you.

 

1 minute ago, Raptor9 said:

It is actually 100% accurate, seeing as how every US Army Block 2 unit received new software in the 2012 to 2013 timeframe, which is why a new manual was released to go along with such upgrades. 

 

Yes, everyone run at the same time to update everything as a clockwork because you say so and not how Boeing and US Army (and US congress funding all) says, requiring years work. 

 

1 minute ago, Raptor9 said:

 

@Fri13, respectfully, you don't know what you are talking about in this matter; I think it's from a misunderstanding of the Apache program and how the fleets are sustained.  I've been a part of the Apache program for almost two decades, I do know what I am talking about.

 

Good, then you can refute what Boeing says in their contracts and what US Army has reported to be delivering for Boeing. 

 

1 minute ago, Raptor9 said:

I'm not going to bother discussing any foreign avionics variants or timelines, because that is the Stinger conversation all over again. 

 

I haven't talked about them at all neither, so good.

[Raptor9]

11 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

You can sue Boeing then for lying to you.

(snip)

Yes, everyone run at the same time to update everything as a clockwork because you say so and not how Boeing and US Army (and US congress funding all) says, requiring years work. 

(snip)

Good, then you can refute what Boeing says in their contracts and what US Army has reported to be delivering for Boeing. 

 

Wow, I literally saw the upgrade timelines and which avionics versions were in use in the fleet myself, I used them, I saw them fielded.  But since I was probably imagining the past two decades of my life, I suppose we will just cling to an alternate reality where wiki-warriors know everything from behind their keyboard versus people that actually use the aircraft that are being discussed.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Raptor9

[Fri13]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

 

Wow, I literally saw the upgrade timelines and which avionics versions were in use in the fleet myself, I used them, I saw them fielded.  But since I was probably the past two decades of my life, I suppose we will just cling to an alternate reality where wiki-warriors know everything from behind their keyboard versus people that actually use the aircraft that are being discussed.

 

So You say that Boeing and US Army are giving wrong information about their timelines and budgets. Good. That makes it all then. You have personally handled every single Apache ever made for US Army from the Boeing, and they lie. 

[Raptor9]

4 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

So You say that Boeing and US Army are giving wrong information about their timelines and budgets. Good. That makes it all then. You have personally handled every single Apache ever made for US Army from the Boeing, and they lie. 

 

As opposed to your google searches?

 

Yeah, you're right. Actually, there is an AH-64A in the museum at Fort Rucker, Alabama.  So I guess I was wrong, the US Army does still use A-models...what was I thinking? 

[Fri13]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

As opposed to your google searches?

 

No, but to what Boeing and US Army has reported with the US Gov. 

Don't take it wrong. I believe you 100% that you are right. All those others just has lied for decades and funneled billions of dollars money around for some reason (not like it would be first time).

 

Just now, Raptor9 said:

Yeah, you're right. Actually, there is an AH-64A in the museum at Fort Rucker, Alabama.  So I guess I was wrong, the US Army does still use A-models...what was I thinking? 

 

I didn't talk about museums... So don't try to be nasty. 

[Raptor9]

3 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

I didn't talk about museums... So don't try to be nasty. 

 

Not being nasty, just being as silly as the logic that dictates that just because I read something on the internet, and someone disagrees with what I believe based on what I read on the internet, despite them having extensive first-hand knowledge on the subject, the only explanation is that they are liars, or that they have been fooled somehow by those that have.

 

This is how absurd this thread has become, and how absurd it has remained, and will probably remain.

[Fri13]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

Not being nasty, just being as silly as the logic that dictates that just because I read something on the internet, and someone disagrees with what I believe based on what I read on the internet, despite them having extensive first-hand knowledge on the subject, the only explanation is that they are liars, or that they have been fooled somehow by those that have.

 

You have first hand experience, that I believe. 

But when that goes against company reports with the military for the government that contradicts you, then I need to trust only you as there is likely something false in the government and company documents for decades.

 

You say you have handled them all and you know them first hand. What I am to disagree with that as first hand information can't be wrong.

Instead it is more easily understandable that war machine business just files what ever needed to tap in the infinite money machine.

[Raptor9]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

You have personally handled every single Apache ever made for US Army from the Boeing

56 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

You say you have handled them all and you know them first hand.

 

Way to put words in someone else's mouth to rationalize an absurd conclusion.

 

This is what is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.  You don't know what you don't know, but you think you know enough to support your personal conclusions.

 

You likely have no idea of how US Army Aviation operates or standardizes the training of it's aircrews.  Because if you did, you would know that you don't need to physically inspect or handle every Apache in the fleet to know the state of the fleet.  The Army never has a mixed bag of multiple models, blocks or even different avionics versions within a single battalion.  It only happens if the unit is in the process of receiving avionics upgrades, or transitioning to a different aircraft model or block.  Even then, that is only over a very short time period until all the unit's pilots have received the "differences" training and are signed off to operate the new aircraft variant.  Until then, if a pilot hasn't received the training, they can't be a member of the aircrew of that version/model.  This level of standardization is why all aircraft are of one type, at least in AH-64 units (can't speak for Black Hawk or Chinook fleets).

 

You do this job long enough, you also begin to get a feel for the pulse of the upgrade/re-manufacture programs, not to mention the networks you develop from colleagues in other units/bases.  It's actually quite easy to stay current on what aviation brigade is running what software or aircraft type.  So it's not about knowing what each individual airframe is configured as, but having an awareness of the state of the various units across the fleet; and when it comes down to that, the US Army Apache community, even with over 700 airframes in operational use, can actually seem quite small when you keep running into the same people and the same units.

 

TL;DR: you're basing your conclusions on internet searches, speculation, and conjecture.  I'm basing mine on first-hand knowledge and direct observations within the fleet.  But in the end, you don't have to believe me.  No one does.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Raptor9

[DaemonPhobos]

First, an early 2002 to 2005 version apache should be getting an early test APKWS (Not APKWS II) which, apparently, was a failed test program.

Second, software for every programmable bus controller and other LRUs, (SP,WP,DP,HIADC,FMC,EGI,TCB,LMP, etc) are loaded quite often into the aircraft, in fact, there is a whole MPD page you have to check in order to verify the correct software are loaded into the aircraft and don't mismatch.

This isn't like a PC where you can have windows XP when there is windows 10 available.

Also, not updating software would create a massive logistics issue, where some aircraft need one manual different from the others.

It may not be an instantaneous update, but it won't take 5 years for sure.

That's why, it's probable, no aircraft with 2009 software ever loaded an APKWS

 

 

[Fri13]

Just now, Raptor9 said:

Way to put words in someone else's mouth to rationalize an absurd conclusion.

 

I thought that You said that:

"Wow, I literally saw the upgrade timelines and which avionics versions were in use in the fleet myself, I used them, I saw them fielded.  But since I was probably imagining the past two decades of my life,"

 

So have you not seen and handled the information for whole AH-64 Fleet Upgrade timelines and versions by yourself?

 

 

Just now, Raptor9 said:

This is what is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.  You don't know what you don't know, but you think you know enough to support your personal conclusions.

 

That is a attack to person....

But as my personal conclusion is that You speak truth and You know what You are talking.... 

What does it make You.... now?

 

As I don't know You, I don't even need to know You. 

All I need to do is to believe to Your word (that I do), because You didn't say earlier that You would be lying...

And I can't know that but that what the word "Believe" means that I don't need to have any valid information to... believe.

 

Just now, Raptor9 said:

You likely have no idea of how US Army Aviation operates or standardizes the training of it's aircrews.  Because if you did, you would know that you don't need to physically inspect or handle every Apache in the fleet to know the state of the fleet. 

 

Did I say that you have physically handled them all...?

 

Just now, Raptor9 said:

The Army never has a mixed bag of multiple models, blocks or even different avionics versions within a single battalion.

 

Where did I speak about battalions?

 

Just now, Raptor9 said:

You do this job long enough, you also begin to get a feel for the pulse of the upgrade/re-manufacture programs, not to mention the networks you develop from colleagues in other units/bases.

 

So You have the feeling about it. I still believe you have the knowledge and experience too... 

 

Just now, Raptor9 said:

  It's actually quite easy to stay current on what aviation brigade is running what software or aircraft type.  So it's not about knowing what each individual airframe is configured as, but having an awareness of the state of the various units across the fleet; and when it comes down to that, the US Army Apache community, even with over 700 airframes in operational use, can actually seem quite small when you keep running into the same people and the same units.

 

Knowing not same thing as being aware. Believing is not same thing as knowing....

 

[BIGNEWY]

Please can we stop with the back and forth in the thread, you have given your opinions, we have replied that the APKWS will not feature on the Apache. Some of you seem to want to turn every thread into an argument, there really is no need. 

 

Thanks

 

[3WA]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

we have replied that the APKWS will not feature on the Apache.

 

Well, that answers that.

 

Apache vs. BS3 is going to be really interesting to watch now.

Edited April 26, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, 3WA said:

Apache vs. BS3 is going to be really interesting to watch now.

 

I don't see what interesting there really is. But maybe it is just me as I am not going to fly missions to go hunting either one... I'll cross that bridge when I come to it....

[Schmidtfire]

APKWS is not difficult to put into a module (like A-10C II or Harrier) and might even help boost some sales, so ED
probably has some very good reasons on why it should not be included as a feature. After all, they have the military relationships,
data and access to pilots and technicians.

While it would have been a fun option.... Why the need for APKWS when you already got 30mm Cannon, Hellfires and Flechette Rockets?  

[Fri13]

32 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

While it would have been a fun option.... Why the need for APKWS when you already got 30mm Cannon, Hellfires and Flechette Rockets?  

 

Because you could get a Laser guided Flechette rockets or laser guided MPSM rockets too?

If we get any time a more properly simulated infantry, then flechette rockets would become handy... 

[Schmidtfire]

34 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Because you could get a Laser guided Flechette rockets or laser guided MPSM rockets too?

If we get any time a more properly simulated infantry, then flechette rockets would become handy... 

Well... it ain't happening. On a good note, the OH-58D module will have the APKWS.    

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Well... it ain't happening. On a good note, the OH-58D module will have the APKWS.    

 

Yes, and nice thing is that we can choose to use or not them in the missions.... So we can build missions from various years and so on get interesting campaigns as well done. 

 

[Schmidtfire]

19 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

Yes, and nice thing is that we can choose to use or not them in the missions.... So we can build missions from various years and so on get interesting campaigns as well done. 

 

Sort of... I mean, we are still missing tons of assets and AI units that belong in the same timeline as APKWS. But thats ok, we always have to mix n' match a little bit.     

[Ramsay]

4 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Why the need for APKWS when you already got 30mm Cannon, Hellfires and Flechette Rockets?

 

With maps like Syria, we are nearing the point where DCS can simulate a modern urban conflict where it becomes worth while to fit a $22,000 guidance kit to a $2,000 rocket to avoid hitting the wrong house/street/troops in contact.

 

As well as removing APKWS from the OH-58D (2017) when simulating older conflicts, I'd like to be able to add it to the AH-64D (~2007) to test it's use when paired with KW and later used as it's replacement.

 

For me, it seems silly to have a OH-58D (2017) and AH-64D (~2007) in a 2021 mission and not allow both to carry APKS rockets when there is no physical reason for them not to. I could understand ED's argument if the APKWS wasn't already in game or their AH-64D licence restricted them to weapons before a certain date.

 

The "date" argument seems silly unless the AH-64D (~2007) "time travelled" to 2021 and wasn't able to rearm when it got here

[Schmidtfire]

It's always good to have options. But in this case it ain't happening and I don't think APKWS is planned for F/A-18C or F-16C modules either.
Personally I would love to play with this puppy, but I doubt it will appear in DCS:
 

 

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, Schmidtfire said:

Sort of... I mean, we are still missing tons of assets and AI units that belong in the same timeline as APKWS. But thats ok, we always have to mix n' match a little bit.     

 

Why it would be nice that we could start getting the various era ground units assets packs. For eras like 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's. And then for various countries in those, examples:

 

60's USSR

70's USSR

....

70's East Germany

....

90's East Germany

....

80's US

90's US

XX French

XX West Germany

XX UK

XX Israel

XX Iran/Iraq....

 

All units to DCS World, where we would start to get making missions that everyone can join but the editor requires to own the assets pack to add them or command them in Combined Arms. 

 

We could start to see more proper missions. But I don't remember did ED say anything about the rebels or technicals for DCS, that were those too "civil" like units to be used?

We should as well get various other cars than just busses, like from SUV to different vans and jeeps and such so we could generate more fitting Syrian missions where your task is just to observe and report. As well more various ships, boats and such to be hunted with Apache and KA-50's. 

This is why it is hopeful that Battlefield Productions would get deal done with the ED for these.

 

We are getting Mi-24P soon and we lack the Fulda Cap map (but can pretend it with Caucasus) where Mi-24, A-10A, T-55/M60, ZSU etc would really be creating the interesting missions.

MiG-23, MiG-21, MiG-19 against.... Well, that is where it really ends. 

[shagrat]

On 4/25/2021 at 2:17 PM, Desert Fox said:

 

Oooooh that's why we always see the same 5 dudes flooding threads after threads with walls of text of made up stories why X should be a thing on Y while ignoring all facts and twisting other peoples statements - as a side note, after ED already told X won't be a thing. A "small aggressive group". Aha

 

Might want to double check how you perceive reality maybe.

Forgot the important part: "...based on their individual perception of "realism" (or preference)." as well, as the explanation why a more detailed "options/settings" implementation could solve the issue, for both the single player and campaign builders and the Multiplayer community, as it would enable the necessary restrictions where needed/wanted and give creators enough flexibility to do interesting mission building, tournaments with, more or less, balanced setups or fun storytelling.

I will repeat myself:

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