Are there weapons in the AH-64D that is not in the A-10C II?

[bofhlusr]

Other than that, the AH-64D is a helicopter with different mission profiles and campaigns, is there a difference?

[Yurgon]

I'm note sure I understand the question.

The AH-64 and the A-10 have the caliber of their gun in common (but not the actual rounds), and both can load some of the same types of rockets, though in different launchers.

Other than that, there are hardly any actual overlaps. Hellfire and Maverick are both Anti Tank Guided Missiles, but they're different in range, technology, warhead, size, shape and just about every other conceivable way. A-10s don't carry Hellfires, Apaches don't carry Mavericks, if that's what you're asking.

So besides the fact that both these aircraft were developed with the air-to-ground-role as their primary purpose, they couldn't be more different.

[bofhlusr]

2 hours ago, Yurgon said:

I'm note sure I understand the question.

...A-10s don't carry Hellfires, Apaches don't carry Mavericks, if that's what you're asking.

So besides the fact that both these aircraft were developed with the air-to-ground-role as their primary purpose, they couldn't be more different.

This is exactly what I am asking for. But your answer surprises me. I thought the A-10 carry Hellfires but maybe I am confusing it with Mavericks.  Are they that different? I know size is different. Couldn't either AH-64D or A-10C II carry either weapon in real life and in DCS?

I was wondering if it was different enough from a weapons systems point of view to buy the AH-64D considering that I already have the UH-Huey and the A-10C II. Thank you.

[Hive]

I suggest you visit wikipedia. These pages list the complete armament capabilities for both aircrafts and you can click on each weapon system to find more information about it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache

A-10C, AH-64D and UH-1H are completely different modules - you won't be bored.

Mavericks and Hellfires are both Air-To-Ground missiles, but they work completely different - at least most variants. The laser guided Mavericks and Hellfires share some similarities, but otherwise it is a fire & forget, optoelectronic missile vs a laser guided missile (or radar guided, when the Apache gets the Fire Control Radar upgrade).

 

 

Edited January 11, 2023 by Hive

[Yurgon]

4 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

I thought the A-10 carry Hellfires [...] Couldn't either AH-64D or A-10C II carry either weapon in real life and in DCS?

Historically, the A-10A got the then brand new Maverick as a kind of "signature" missile for the Anti-Tank role, while the Apache got the Hellfire as its "signature" missile.

Russians put the same Vikhr ATGMs on the Su-25 and the Ka-50, so this can be done, the US simply didn't go down that road.

In theory, it might be possible to put Hellfires on the A-10 or Mavericks on the Apache, but that would require systems integration, possibly new wiring, changed pylons/adapters and hundreds or thousands of hours of flight testing and certification. This simply has not been done.

And while the A-10 might get a kick out of carrying lots of Hellfires, it makes very little sense to put Mavericks on the Apache; they have a range and warhead advantage over the Hellfires, but because of their size and weight, the Apache probably couldn't carry more than 1 per pylon for a maximum of 4, vs. 4 Hellfires per pylon for a maximum of 16.

So, could it be done? Yes, it might be possible. Has it been done? Not that I'm aware of. In DCS this would be completely unrealistic.

4 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

I was wondering if it was different enough from a weapons systems point of view to buy the AH-64D considering that I already have the UH-Huey and the A-10C II.

There are overlaps and similarities between the 2 aircraft and their mission profiles.

Like when you're on vacation, you can sleep in a tent or in an RV or in a hotel room. There are similarities. But they're all different.

All I can say is, I love all 3 of the modules you mentioned, and I enjoy flying each and every one of them.

If the question is, do you need the AH-64 to kill tanks when you already have the A-10, then, well, you don't need the AH-64. But do you enjoy flying helicopters, do you enjoy learning new DCS modules, do you enjoy immersing yourself in possibly the single most complicated attack helicopter ever developed for a computer game? Then I would totally recommend the Apache.

[BuzzU]

Buy them both. ED will love you.

[bofhlusr]

On 1/11/2023 at 4:00 PM, Yurgon said:

If the question is, do you need the AH-64 to kill tanks when you already have the A-10, then, well, you don't need the AH-64. But do you enjoy flying helicopters, do you enjoy learning new DCS modules, do you enjoy immersing yourself in possibly the single most complicated attack helicopter ever developed for a computer game? Then I would totally recommend the Apache.

Which one has a steeper learning curve and skill requirements? I'm having a hard time hitting anything with the A10's gun.

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, bofhlusr said:

Which one has a steeper learning curve and skill requirements? I'm having a hard time hitting anything with the A10's gun.

They're both ranking among the most complicated/complex aircraft in DCS.
Although I have to say that the gun is pretty much one of the easiest things about the A-10, so I really wonder why you struggle with it?

Edited January 13, 2023 by QuiGon

[ASAP]

What are you struggling with with the gun? Send a video maybe you can get some pointers.

[Yurgon]

3 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

Which one has a steeper learning curve and skill requirements?

Being a fixed wing aircraft, the A-10 is much easier to fly than the Apache. But taking a deep dive into its systems can take years. Or in other words, it's easy to fly but hard to master.

The same is true for the Apache, except it's not easy to fly in the first place.

3 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

I'm having a hard time hitting anything with the A10's gun.

I can only guess that you're flying unrealistic missions with unrealistic objectives, and going by the question this thread is based on, you don't have a lot of experience with combat aviation and related weapons. I can only recommend to take it slow, learn one system at a time, get proficient at basic aircraft handling first, and leave use of the weapons for a point in the future where you already have a foundation that you can build upon.

[bofhlusr]

7 hours ago, ASAP said:

What are you struggling with with the gun? Send a video maybe you can get some pointers.

I am struggling hitting a non-moving static object (a large tank) which I placed for practice by creating a simple mission in the default 'X' runway.

The problem is I keep missing to hit the large tank directly even after several attempts at shooting it down.  I start the run at about 5,000 ft at least 3 n.miles away and start using the gun between 1.5-2.0 nm away.

Questions:
1. At what point in time should I start diving from 5000 ft. Is it from 2 or 3 nm away?
2. At what speed and when?
3. Do I use elevator trims? When?
4. Do I use the speed brake? When?
5. Do I just press 'p' once to activate the gunpac* or do I have to continue holding it down while I'm shooting with the gun?
6. Is there a snap view to look at the back of the plane without pressing F4? (the problem with F4 is that I have to press F1 to get back to the cockpit)
7. Does the A-I0C II have a 'drone' view like in Microsoft Flight Simulator? Or a 'slew' mode like in Prepar3d?
8. Is there a way to save the game when I'm about to start the run to the target?
9. How do I record a video in the game?

* I am using the Logitech 3D Extreme joystick using the LCtrl or LShift as modifiers + joystick buttons or hat combination. I have the X52 Pro but it's bulky, and not really necessary for Microsoft Flight Simulator, and I also like to keep my set-up and things as simple as possible.

Edited January 13, 2023 by bofhlusr
Typo correction

[Diesel9959]

I used the exact same joystick for several months. I'm no expert but I'll share what I do. When I nose over towards the target I throttle down to control my speed. I don't think I've used the speed brake. I fire the gun in the 1 NM range and using the gun reticle with two dots. When the dots get close to each other I put the reticle on target and fire. I never changed the trim during a gun run. I don't have any knowledge about your camera view questions.

I expect more competent A-10C II pilots to chime in and be more helpful.

[bofhlusr]

1 hour ago, Diesel9959 said:

I used the exact same joystick for several months...

Did you replace it with something else, and why? It seems to me that by using the keyboard modifiers (eg. LCtrl) and the joystick buttons that there's quite a few buttons to work with.

12 joystick buttons + 4 in hat = 16
Ctrl + 12 buttons + 4 in hat = 16
Shift + above = 16
Alt + above = 16
Win + above = 16
====
Total buttons (16 x 5) = at least 80 buttons using the Logitech 3D.
 

Edited January 13, 2023 by bofhlusr

[ASAP]

In the real jet pac-1 engages as long as you are holding the trigger in the first detent and goes to pac-2 when you pull the trigger. I’ve only ever played DCS with the warthog HOTAS so I’m not sure about your pac question. I’d guess you have to hold it. 

don’t trim while you are shooting

As far as the mechanics of shooting, try this…

use the CCIP gun cross

if you are at 5k and have hmcs fly  at a 45-60 degree angle off of the the target and watch the target in your hmcs monocle. If you fly straight and level and watch the target through your hmcs you should see it start to slowly fall down the hmcs pitch ladders. As soon as the target is approaching 20 degrees nose low push the throttles to max roll to point the top of your head at the target and start a steady tone pull toward the target.  As the target enters your HUD roll out and put the gun cross right below the target. As you get closer the cross will slowly move up to the target. When the cross is on the target engage pac-1. If you like your aim point squeeze the trigger and hold it for as long as it takes you to say “die-rat-bastard-die”  if you did it right the tank should die. I have more success if I wait til I’m around a mile ish to shoot. 
 

Why 20 degrees? I think it’s an easy angle to shoot and more importantly It gives you something to make your guns passes more mechanical and repeatable which is good while you’re learning.  You can try and make your gun roll ins look the same if you have some idea of what parameters you want to use. That way after every pass you can think of what you did and how to fix it. And then put yourself in the same position you were last time to try and improve. Also if 20 degrees at 5k has you making a very rushed close in shot then bump up your altitude by 1000k and try again

[Diesel9959]

I recently got the Thrustmaster warthog hotas and so far it does everything I've been doing before without keyboard modifiers. I'm aware there are some who think it's not a good hotas, but it works for me and I like it. Again I'm no expert just sharing my personal experience because I like this aircraft.

80 buttons may be possible but honestly I don't need that many for the weapons I prefer to use. And now I rarely if ever use the keyboard once in the air.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Diesel9959

[Yurgon]

8 minutes ago, Diesel9959 said:

I'm aware there are some who think it's not a good hotas, but it works for me and I like it.

I've used it for years, and while it does have some shortcomings, it is a good HOTAS. Well, actually I've only replaced the stick-base, the rest I'm still using (so Warthog throttle, plus Warthog grip on a Virpil base), and it's definitely a league above the 3D Extreme. My main gripe is that TM never addressed the issues and shortcomings. But I don't want to derail the topic any more than I already have.
Yeah, the TM Warthog is a very good choice to fly the DCS A-10C.

[bofhlusr]

Thank you all. I need practice.

I was kinda surprised at the answers saying that the AH-64 is harder to fly than the A-10.  I'm guessing that because AH-64 can hover, it is probably easier to shoot at targets with the gun.

[Yurgon]

32 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

I'm guessing that because AH-64 can hover, it is probably easier to shoot at targets with the gun.

Depends on the point of view.

In the Apache, the back-seater will typically fly the helicopter while the front-seater aims the gun through the TADS optics. However, the Apache's chain gun is called "area effect weapon system" for a reason, it's not very precise. It's mostly useful against soft skin vehicles and infantry.

The A-10's GAU-8 is surprisingly accurate from up to 2 miles out, and dive angles around 30° help keep a tight impact pattern. It'll kill APCs and IFVs with a single burst. Against MBTs, pilots should get a bit closer in order to ensure lots of energy in the rounds, so we're talking roughly 1 NM engagement range against such targets.

And as far as hovering is concerned, yeah, hovering can make for an easy shot, but it also means the helicopter is going to be very vulnerable. Depending on terrain and known and suspected threats, pilots usually want to stay in motion.

40 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

I was kinda surprised at the answers saying that the AH-64 is harder to fly than the A-10.

Well, it's a helicopter with a conventional rotor system. Making the main rotor turn generates torque, which makes the nose yaw, and any pitch change in the rotor blades changes the power requirement and, in turn, the torque and the yaw, so pilots have to use the pedals to change pitch on the anti-torque tail rotor accordingly. The tail rotor, in turn, blows air sideways, which adds a translating tendency, making the helicopter tend to go to the right in a hover, so pilots have to apply the slightest bit of left cyclic. All of that begins to change as the helicopter starts to fly into any direction, as the rotor blades begin to work in air that has not yet been disturbed by their own motion, and at higher forward speeds the fuselage design will give the helicopter added directional stability, while the horizontal stabilizer gains efficiency and can be used to help pitch the nose up or down and keep the helicopter stable.

In comparison, fixed wing aerodynamics are laughably simple, as are the control inputs.

[Falconeer]

On 1/12/2023 at 1:00 AM, Yurgon said:

In theory, it might be possible to put Hellfires on the .......

It's possible... they are called "Brimstones" 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)

Edited January 14, 2023 by Falconeer

[Yurgon]

6 hours ago, Falconeer said:

It's possible... they are called "Brimstones" 

Yeah, they look suspiciously familiar to the Hellfire...

But I'm not aware of any integration tests with the A-10C.

[Mogster]

Aye Brimstone is basically a development of the Hellfire isn’t it? A Hellfire that’s compatible with fixed wing. Hellfire is much smaller than Maverick, Maverick has a 100lbs warhead, Brimstone only 15lbs or so. Maverick is heavy overkill for most of its recent uses although so are Hellfire/Brimstone tbh.

Brimstone are made near my house, but that’s by the by  

Edited January 14, 2023 by Mogster

[Falconeer]

37 minutes ago, Mogster said:

 Maverick is heavy overkill for most of its recent uses 

I read somewhere that the Israeli even removed the warheads, because of the kinectic energy the missie has when it strikes it's target. But they were used against older Sovjet armor tanks found in the Middle East

[QuiGon]

On 1/14/2023 at 7:23 PM, Mogster said:

Aye Brimstone is basically a development of the Hellfire isn’t it? A Hellfire that’s compatible with fixed wing.

The Hellfire itself is compatible with fixed wing as it is used on the MQ-9 Reaper and KC-130 for example.

[Hazardpro]

Hellfire and Maverick are different classes of weapon born of different requirements. Hellfire is an ATGM meant to replace TOW for helicopters. Maverick is a PGM designed for use against all kinds of targets that you might not want to overfly with conventional bombs, not just vehicles but also bunkers, depots, bridges, ships, HQs, etc.

Edited February 14, 2023 by Hazardpro

[Silver_Dragon]

The AGM-65 Maverick was a  develop replacement to the AGM-12 Bullpup missile as multipropose fire and forget missile with diferent guiadance and diferent land and sea targets and a range of 12 Nautical miles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-65_Maverick

The AGM-114 was initialy developer as a TOW antitank missile remplacement, and actually update to attack multipropose land and sea targets and a range of 8-11 Km.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

The two missiles will be replaced by the AGM-179 JAGM / ER with 8-16 km range.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-179_JAGM

A-10 has none plans to use AGM-114 and actually has not talks about implement AGM-179 on future Suite. Brigstone has a UK missile and none plan to integrate them on A-10, and only carried by Tornados and UK EFAs, but none integrate on WAH-64 UK versions.