The AH-64 Apache Thread

[AlphaOneSix]

Newer Apaches have the Arrowhead system. This has vastly improved optics (both in the eye piece and in the pod). The eye piece isn't just input, it's also output by tracking the eye pupil for precise targeting and sensor queuing. One interesting thing to note about Apache pilots: They learn how to operate their eyes independently of one another. The left eye might be looking straight forward while the right eye is looking down and right!

 

More info:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/arrowhead-mtads-pnvs-sensor-system-06461/

 

Can you give any references for these two statements:

 

"tracking the eye pupil"

 

and

 

"They learn how to operate their eyes independently of one another"

[Flagrum]

Regarding "They learn how to operate their eyes independently of one another": iirc, Ed Macy mentioned it in either "Apache" or "Hellfire".

[AlphaOneSix]

Hey guys another annoying quote:helpsmilie:, maybe someone also watched interview which I saw couple years ago, i believe in Youtube or common website, there was a short interview with Apache pilot which was telling about Task Force Normandy group and he was explaining that they were forced to solve the problem with taking external fuel tanks and don't mix guided and unguided weapens on Alfa AH-64 model for this action?? Anyone heard or saw something alike ??

 

When installing ferry tanks, the gun was normally disabled because it was possible for the gun to slew to either side far enough that the barrel would be pointing at the fuel tank. In order to get around this problem, the fire control computer software was updated to restrict the guns' azimuth limits to one side (or both sides) when ferry tanks were installed. This allowed the gun to be operated even with ferry tanks installed, which was not possible (or at least, a very very bad idea) prior to Desert Storm.

 

There was also an issue with the Hellfire seeker heads not being able to see very well with the ferry tank in the way. That is, if you had a ferry tank on the right inboard station, and a rack of Hellfires on the right outboard station, then seekers on that rack had a very limited view to the left. I believe that was solved via training. I don't recall any issues with rockets, although the rockets at the time were known for ejecting debris out the back during launch, and I think there was a concern that the debris would damage the ferry tank since they were in such close proximity.

 

When I was in the 101st, we trained for combat missions with two inboard ferry tanks, although Task Force Normandy just used a single ferry tank on the right inboard station.

[AlphaOneSix]

Regarding "They learn how to operate their eyes independently of one another": iirc, Ed Macy mentioned it in either "Apache" or "Hellfire".

 

Well, that explains that, then. (I had a lot of issues with the content of "Apache" that really tarnished my opinion of Ed Macy, who I have no doubt is an otherwise outstanding pilot and Briton.) I can assure you that American pilots do not have this capability. In fact, the involuntary twitching of the eye in responsible to stimuli independently of the unaided eye was a huge source of medical issues, specifically migraines. Over time, the pilots "got used to it" but it was not something that they could voluntarily control.

[StrongHarm]

Yes of course i heard about arrowhead modernizations, but there not much informations about steering the gun in AH-1:(

 

If you're fishing for classified info you're probably not going to find it here. It's against forum rules + most people here who have it are well aware of ALICE.

 

Here's some publicly available info on the Thales Top-Owl sighting system and the TSS that it feeds:

 

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/topowlr-helmet-mounted-sight-and-display-helicopters

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/01/lockheed-electrooptics-cobra.html

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/TSS.html

[ame]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2016/navy-peds/0604245n_5_pb_2016.pdf[/ame]

[Headhunter88]

hydra blast issue

 

When installing ferry tanks, the gun was normally disabled because it was possible for the gun to slew to either side far enough that the barrel would be pointing at the fuel tank. In order to get around this problem, the fire control computer software was updated to restrict the guns' azimuth limits to one side (or both sides) when ferry tanks were installed. This allowed the gun to be operated even with ferry tanks installed, which was not possible (or at least, a very very bad idea) prior to Desert Storm.

 

There was also an issue with the Hellfire seeker heads not being able to see very well with the ferry tank in the way. That is, if you had a ferry tank on the right inboard station, and a rack of Hellfires on the right outboard station, then seekers on that rack had a very limited view to the left. I believe that was solved via training. I don't recall any issues with rockets, although the rockets at the time were known for ejecting debris out the back during launch, and I think there was a concern that the debris would damage the ferry tank since they were in such close proximity.

 

When I was in the 101st, we trained for combat missions with two inboard ferry tanks, although Task Force Normandy just used a single ferry tank on the right inboard station.

 

Are you sure there is no problem with FFAR? couple years ago i heard about problem with fleet AH-64 in Afghanistan which had issue with rockets installed on letf inboard station (just like TFN in 1991). Blast from couple rockets fired at once very ofted demaged tail rotors in apache's so command decided to resign from instalation of FFAR in this place. Do you confirm ?

[Headhunter88]

If you're fishing for classified info you're probably not going to find it here. It's against forum rules + most people here who have it are well aware of ALICE.

 

Here's some publicly available info on the Thales Top-Owl sighting system and the TSS that it feeds:

 

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/topowlr-helmet-mounted-sight-and-display-helicopters

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2015/01/lockheed-electrooptics-cobra.html

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/TSS.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2016/navy-peds/0604245n_5_pb_2016.pdf

 

Hey I dont need any classified info :thumbup:

I just wanted to know how pilot helmet is connected with gun in earle and late CObras :)

[Bushmanni]

In early Cobras the helmet has a rigid boom with instrumented gimbals attached to it so that the system knows where each gimbal is pointing. It's fundamentally similar system as the gunners gunsight grip in UH-1H but it's on your helmet. You can find more about it in TM-55-1520-234-10 flight manual for AH-1S.

 

edit: I found a video of it.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Bushmanni

[AlphaOneSix]

Are you sure there is no problem with FFAR? couple years ago i heard about problem with fleet AH-64 in Afghanistan which had issue with rockets installed on letf inboard station (just like TFN in 1991). Blast from couple rockets fired at once very ofted demaged tail rotors in apache's so command decided to resign from instalation of FFAR in this place. Do you confirm ?

 

I never heard anything about that. Up until around the time of Desert Storm, Hellfires were always loaded on inboard stations, with rockets on the outboard stations. Shortly after that, my unit would always mount rockets inboard instead, claiming that it improved accuracy. I don't know whether it did or not, honestly. The horizontal stabilator on the AH-64 has a rubber matting glued to it (it's black unless it's been painted over, and visible in pretty much any picture of an AH-64 horizontal stabilator. That was put there specifically to prevent damage from rocket motor exhaust from both Hellfires and rockets, but I personally never saw any damage done to anything back there from rockets or Hellfires, neither on the tail rotor or the stabilator.

[Headhunter88]

I never heard anything about that. Up until around the time of Desert Storm, Hellfires were always loaded on inboard stations, with rockets on the outboard stations. Shortly after that, my unit would always mount rockets inboard instead, claiming that it improved accuracy. I don't know whether it did or not, honestly. The horizontal stabilator on the AH-64 has a rubber matting glued to it (it's black unless it's been painted over, and visible in pretty much any picture of an AH-64 horizontal stabilator. That was put there specifically to prevent damage from rocket motor exhaust from both Hellfires and rockets, but I personally never saw any damage done to anything back there from rockets or Hellfires, neither on the tail rotor or the stabilator.

 

Many thank for all help:) :) :).

If you please last 3 questions for now:

1. Please look on this link and confirm that this guy made his model in proper configuration for Task Force Normandy

http://zone-five.net/showthread.php?t=13537

2. Could you tell how many (circa of course) AH-64 US Army has now in duty ? I think it should be about 690-700, becouse rest was lost during wars and accidents, and about 100 of them are AH-64E, rest is AH-64D in different stages of modernizations, am i right ?

3. Do you know where to look / or maybe you have real photos of 2 first choppers from this link (sharkmouths, both from 82 airborne):

http://www.karaya.pl/thumbnails/max/product/08ac7f1f690156a2164e8435d2d9a0f96063fae7.jpg

or 1st sharkmouthed bird-(995102, 3 rd infantry division) from this link:

http://decals.kitreview.com/decals/images/AH-64D_IsraDecals-04.jpg

Like always i will be grateful for all help which i can get

Please try to udnerstand me, that this Helo is my love from childhood and infos about it are very important to me :)

Edited April 22, 2016 by Headhunter88

[Headhunter88]

In early Cobras the helmet has a rigid boom with instrumented gimbals attached to it so that the system knows where each gimbal is pointing. It's fundamentally similar system as the gunners gunsight grip in UH-1H but it's on your helmet. You can find more about it in TM-55-1520-234-10 flight manual for AH-1S.

 

edit: I found a video of it.

 

Many thanks for this video and short infor about all idea :)

You just confirmed what i suspect, but this is in older AH-1, what about AH-1T and AH-1W?? do they use similar system? do you have any vids from those choppers ?

Edited April 22, 2016 by Headhunter88

[Bushmanni]

AH-1W also uses the mechanical system. You can see the stick in a stowed position on the top left canopy frame on pictures of a parked Whiskey.

 

Here's a video of a Whiskey pilot explaining about the helmet sight.

https://youtu.be/sp9LXvVBOVw?t=798

[AlphaOneSix]

1. Please look on this link and confirm that this guy made his model in proper configuration for Task Force Normandy

http://zone-five.net/showthread.php?t=13537

 

Based on the pictures I've seen, that is correct.

 

2. Could you tell how many (circa of course) AH-64 US Army has now in duty ? I think it should be about 690-700, becouse rest was lost during wars and accidents, and about 100 of them are AH-64E, rest is AH-64D in different stages of modernizations, am i right ?

 

I don't know how many are in service with the U.S. Army since that is not something I've kept up with since I left the military, but your numbers seem roughly correct.

 

3. Do you know where to look / or maybe you have real photos of 2 first choppers from this link (sharkmouths, both from 82 airborne):)

 

Nope, no idea.

[Heli]

AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire might engage aerial targets!

 

 

The IFPC Inc 2-I Multi Mission Launcher launches a Longbow Hellfire missile against a UAS representative target on White Sands Missile Range. The MML is a new air defense system undergoing testing on WSMR to integrate new control systems and missiles.

 

A series of tests here is demonstrating the capabilities of a new air defense system in development by the U.S. Army.

 

The Integrated Fire Protection Capability Increment 2-Intercept, IFPC Inc 2-I, is a defense system in development to protect Soldiers from aircraft, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial systems, as well as artillery weapons like cannons, rockets and mortars.

 

"If you go back and take a look at what has happened in terms of the threat over the last couple years you'll find that UAS systems and cruise missiles have really become a problem," said Col. Terrence Howard, program manager for Cruise Missile Defense Systems. "So we've got to introduce materiel solutions that can address multiple threats."

 

As an emerging Army air defense system, not only does it have the requirement to defend against a wide variety of threats, but it also must integrate into the Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense system. AIAMD is a networked air defense control system also currently going through testing on WSMR.

 

"The idea behind that is 'plug and fight,' take multiple systems, multiple radars, and put it on a network and solve whatever threat situation we have out there," Howard said.

 

This March and April, IFPC Inc 2-I is conducting several launches to test the systems ability to launch various missile types, and demonstrate its ability to connect to the AIAMD system and utilize its Integrated Battle Command System, IBCS, a computer system that allows a small number of Soldiers to better manage and control a complex air defense network composed of different radars and missile systems.

 

"(It's about) integration of a lot of existing capability," said Tamera Adams, chief engineer with the Army's Cruise Missile Defense Systems projects. "It's kind of like if you're trying to put together a new stereo system in your house. You're buying speakers from this vendor, a turntable from another and a DVD player from another. You're trying to put them together to get the best capability for your house."

 

One of the most visible features of the IFPC Inc 2-I system is its Multi-Mission Launcher, MML. The launcher, mounted on a medium tactical truck similar in size to a delivery truck, carries 15 modular missile launch tubes on a turret system allowing the missiles to be launched in almost any direction. The vehicle's size allows it to be placed in nearly any location, and the tube system will allow the launcher to customize its missile loadout, to meet the requirements of many different missions.

 

To date the program has launched a Hellfire Longbow and a pair of AIM-9X Sidewinders utilizing the IBCS and sensor data from a Sentinel radar unit, as well as conducting a ballistic test of the Miniature Hit-to-Kill missile, a compact missile intended for use against rocket, artillery and mortar threats. In most of these tests the IFPC Inc 2-I system is being used against targets representing cruise missile or UAS threats to allow the IFPC Inc 2-I test to evaluate not just the systems compatibility with the IBCS and missiles, but also evaluate how it performs against those threats.

 

"We're firing the entire kill chain and seeing what the end product looks like as we shoot at unmanned aerial systems and cruise missiles," Howard said.

 

IFPC Inc 2-I is a joint collaborative effort between the Army's Program Executive Office for Missiles and Space's Cruise Missile Defense Systems Project Office and the Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center. Produced largely in house by the Army, the program has seen rapid progress, going from concept, to demonstrator, to its current full featured prototype form in only a few years.

 

"We've been working for the past 24 months, on maturing the design of our new launcher and integrating with three major existing programs: AIAMD, the sentinel radar system and the AIM-9X missile," Adams said.

 

As the Army's premiere location for the test of complex missile and air defense systems, as well as the existing presences of the AIAMD program, WSMR was the logical choice for this test series. WSMR has supported the IFPC demonstrator in previous testing, and is able to provide not only the space, but also the targets, telemetry, staff and infrastructure needed for testing counter cruise missile and UAS systems.

 

"(WSMR has) the technical expertise to run these ranges and really provide the data we need to get out of the test and the test results," Howard said. "So we can go back and do our analysis and say 'did we get this right?'"

 

More firings are scheduled at WSMR to continue testing the launchers capabilities and compatibility with other missiles and systems.

https://www.army.mil/article/166725/Army_testing_air_defense_system_integration/

 

:enemy helicopters::spam_laser::ah-64:

Edited April 29, 2016 by Heli

[Headhunter88]

TEDAC in Iraqi War 2003?

 

Hello.

Recently I saw on web commercial of this set

https://www.deagostini.com/uk/collections/build-apache-helicopter/

It shows AH-64D from 2003 Iraqi War with TEDAC display installed in gunners cockpit.

I have issue for people who worked with AH-64 around 2003-is it possible that such instrument was installed on AH-64D in 2003 Gulf War ?

I read that first Arrowhead modernization sets were installed and became operational around 2005, but I am not sure if the TEDAC displays could be installed earlier?

Thanks in advance for help.

[Headhunter88]

Hello.

Recently I saw on web commercial of this set

https://www.deagostini.com/uk/collections/build-apache-helicopter/

It shows AH-64D from 2003 Iraqi War with TEDAC display installed in gunners cockpit.

I have issue for people who worked with AH-64 around 2003-is it possible that such instrument was installed on AH-64D in 2003 Gulf War ?

I read that first Arrowhead modernization sets were installed and became operational around 2005, but I am not sure if the TEDAC displays could be installed earlier?

Thanks in advance for help.

 

My answer on my qouestion is that first TEDAC monitors were in helos sent to Iraq around 2004 year, confirmed with actual Apache pilot and AH-64 historian.

[Headhunter88]

AH-64A 2 questions

 

Hi. 2 more questions, this time strictly about AH-64A Apache version:

1. Which model is more real Task Force Normandy configuration??

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234967578-ah-64a-apache-desert-storm-1991/

or this one

http://zone-five.net/showthread.php?t=13537

??

2. Why some of AH-64A's have on the top left and right avionics sponson black square flat element's (i suppose that they are anti slip carpets just like those on wings).

Is it a early/late modification for whole fleet or only some of AH-64A'a had them.

Example without them:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/U.S._Army_AH-64_prepares_to_launch_from_USS_Nassau_Feb_2005.jpg

 

This'one definately has it:

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/michael_block/ah-64a/images/ah-64a_15_of_52.jpg

 

For 100% understanding which element's i mean see 3 links to models which authors also made them:

 

http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Fea1/301-400/Fea387-AH-64-Moore/00.shtm

http://modelingmadness.com/review/mod/jacksonah64.htm

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AH-64A_Apache_paper_model.JPG

 

Thank for help :)

Edited August 8, 2016 by Headhunter88

[Heli]

You got some pictures of that, I think... We called it ELRAT, Elevated Site System.

 

Dr. James Crouch, right, and David Emmons standing in front of the Elevated Site System at Martin Marietta in Orlando.

It was a TADS unit that normally goes on the front of an Apache helicopter,

 

 

The Target Acquisition Designation Sight System (TADS) at Martin Marietta in Orlando.

but up on a compressed air pole that would go up 90 ft. in the air and look over the pine trees at targets. It had a laser, and a flare, and a television system that allowed you to identify targets and illuminate targets with a laser. If you pick out a little spot on a target the size of a silver dollar, for instance, and you can fly various missiles like Copperhead or Navy GP or ADATS against the target.

 

 

The Elevated Site System, (ELRAT) equipped with TADS at Martin Marietta in Orlando.

 

Now ADATS has it's own spatial guidance system. ELRAT was basically using the illuminated site from the TADS against a target. That computer was capable of dealing with as many as five missiles at one time.... Yeah, that was a lot of fun. There were real nice kids working on that program and they were all real smart, strong backgrounds in computer stuff. And the guy that worked for me on the electrical part of TADS, the Moose Harness, was a guy named Frank Hazard. He did live over in Leesburg.... He's a really fine guy. We worked on several jobs together....

 

http://orlandomemory.info/memory/image/martin-mariettas-optical-area-correlator
Edited September 10, 2016 by Heli

[Headhunter88]

Hello, I read that US stopped production of Longbow Hellfire missiles in 2005? Could somebody confirm? If yes could anybody gave the reason? And for what purposes they use radars on AH-64's although they didn't use radar guided missiles?

[Yurgon]

And for what purposes they use radars on AH-64's although they didn't use radar guided missiles?

 

Not a subject matter expert here and happy to be corrected by people with more intimate systems knowledge. But AFAIK the longbow radar is used for both terrain mapping and target acquisition. It's yet another tool in the already pretty impressive toolbox available to Apache crews.

 

I don't think there are many radar guided AGMs around. The problem is that, by definition, there will be lots of reflecting surface all around the target. Guiding a weapon by radar would require a whole lot of signal processing. Painting the target with a laser spot or guiding the missile by optical/infrared means is a lot easier to accomplish.

 

Still, finding targets by radar means crews can get sensors on target a lot faster and then decide on the best weapon and/or type of guidance. And I'm sure it helps with navigation, especially in bad weather and low visibility conditions.

 

IIRC Ed Macy wrote in "Apache" (or maybe in "Hellfire", or maybe he said it in a Q&A regarding these books) that the British Apaches used the radar a whole lot in Afghanistan, just not for target acquisition, because their targets were mostly infantry. But it helped a lot at night and just generally to provide crews with all around better situational awareness.

[Hummingbird]

Man... I still wish Denmark would've gone with ~30 Gripens + 30 Apaches instead of the 28 F-35's for roughly the same price :'(

[Heli]

Hello, I read that US stopped production of Longbow Hellfire missiles in 2005? Could somebody confirm?

 

true

system status changed from Production&Deployment to Operation&Support

US Navy and foreign operators still uses Army stocks

 

If yes could anybody gave the reason?

 

completed final multi-year contract

 

its now time to JAGM's acquisition

Edited January 5, 2017 by Heli

[Heli]

 

Hughes stuff

[Heli]

 

The Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) has been fired from an AH-64D Apache for the first time, it has been confirmed by the US Army's Program Executive Office (PEO) Missiles and Space.

 

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/first-firing-jagm-apache/

[AlphaOneSix]

I'm responding to old questions, sorry...

 

 

Hi. 2 more questions, this time strictly about AH-64A Apache version:

1. Which model is more real Task Force Normandy configuration??

 

This one:

 

2. Why some of AH-64A's have on the top left and right avionics sponson black square flat element's (i suppose that they are anti slip carpets just like those on wings).

Is it a early/late modification for whole fleet or only some of AH-64A'a had them.

 

All AH-64A's have the non-skid paint on the wings and avionics bays where it's okay to walk. Out of the factory, that non-skid paint is black. However, it was not unusual for an aircraft to get repainted and they would just paint over the black non-skid with whatever color they were painting the aircraft. It did not affect the non-skid really, but it would make it look a different color than the original black.