I feel like you could pretty safely move this thing down to 11.3, it’s easily the second worst Apache in the game. No MAWS, no IRCM, and 30 countermeasures at max. I’d rather be in an Mi-35 any day over this, and that thing gets to be 10.7, a full bracket lower.
While I think most of the Apaches could come down 0.3 br without issue, all of these are helpless to a Ka-50 slinging a missile at you, this thing is just worse than all the other 11.7 Apaches. I see why Japan irl isn’t even bothering with these anymore, I’d ditch this pile of garbage too. At least at 11.3, you could run these with the Type 90’s and feel a little competitive
2 Likes
The big issue is the double standard. They refuse to give the DJP it’s LWS or MAWS because there are no pictures of it mounted, even though it should be compatible with both. Yet they give every single AH-64A regardless of nation AIM-9 compatibility and every single Apache ATAS even though Japan was the only customer prior to the AH-64E. Both ATAS and AIM-9 wiring required new mission fire control computers and a few other major modifications yet all these nations get them when their Apaches don’t have the necessary modifications because “balance”. It’s just another one of the double standards against Japan when it comes to hypothetical armament.
3 Likes
Because the Japanese armed forces chose to procure a domestic system for both MAWS and LWS, but never actually had such pan out during the procurement process of the helicopter itself. Blame the Japanese ministry of defense for not just buying the bundled tech.
All AH-64 variants from the AH-64A are compatible with the ATAS without modifications, the only limiting factor for them in US service which is stopping them from mounting such in active service as of now is that the CMWS system is present within the wingtip mounting brackets preventing the ATAS from being installed. In the case of the AIM-9 series of missiles, all AH-64s in US service are capable of using AIM-9s up to the Ms, they are not used in current doctrine however.
This is completely wrong, the ATAS system requires no onboard system software integration to be used, only requiring a generic MIL-STD rail which is present on all US rotary wing vehicles that can mount any modern A2G weapon. For all intents and purposes, the AH-64 series should be able to use the ATAS on all mounts without any modifications required, along with the AH-6, AH-1 series, and any helicopter that can mount a LAU rocket pod, this was a primary design goal of the ATAS as it is a fully self contained, bolt on system.
Alright? So it’s a procurement issue for Japan, but not for the countries that didn’t procure ATAS or the AIM-9 mods?
As for the rest you have no idea what you are talking about about. There were multiple physical components requires to mount ATAS and a bunch of additions and modifications to the DATA BUS. It’s not some bolt on system. It only became standard on AH-64D Blk III aka AH-64E.
3 Likes
AH-64D(JP) is also compatible with LWS and MAWS, yet it doesn’t get it.
I’d personally prefer if all were held to the same standards. I’d even understand if US tests of ATAS meant that their AH-64D still got it, but simply all AH-64Ds is going too far.
The only nations that sports the AIM-9 on AH-64s currently is the US and the early make AH-64As, you can make a case for the premium Greek AH-64A not being able to sport 9Ls as it Greece never purchased them for this purpose, but that would be something to take up with gaijin, same case with the ATAS on said Greek premium AH-64A.
However, The mainline US AH-64s not only contain the existing wingtip mounting brackets for the ATAS but also never removed the onboard wingtip integration systems for such.
For the wingtip mounts, which your documents directly reference, yes, said mounts required unique systems due to the fact that no mount existed there within the original AH-64 design, however, these systems were not depreciated on any AH-64 post the original batch of the AH-64A. All AH-64s retain these onboard systems for the wingtip mounts in particular, the only actual change between the A and E for the ATAS system happens to be the removal of the ATAS panel itself as the introduction of the main MFD systems made separate weapons control panels obsolete.
However, for all modern rotary wing assets within the US arsenal bar those without ordinance rails, the system is bolt on, this includes the AH-64As and Ds that have been upgraded to the post 2000 standards and include a MIL-STD-1553 BUS, said BUS is the only requirement for normal rail operation bar the wingtip mounts which still operate on their own system due to them being unique rails.
Should also note that not all AH-64s are made equal as well, EG this was an initial batch AH-64A which lacks the wingtip ATAS integration, shown by the presence of the collision light and lack of mounting bolts, these were part of the initial batch of AH-64As and represent the oldest make of the helicopter.
Meanwhile here is a AH-64A that was damaged in operation Iraqi freedom, notice the distinct lack of a collision light like the early lot AH-64A and instead the presence of 4 mounting bolts. This is indicative of an AH-64A built with the required systems for the wingtip mounting of an ATAS, or a myraid of other wingtip mounted systems which were trialed and used for the AH-64 series.
Such bolts are also present on all makes of the AH-64D including those that have a CMWS integrated into those locations. In these situations, yes the CMWS would need to be removed, however, such is not a infeasible task as AH-64Ds as those CMWS sensors happen to be built onto the systems mount present for wingtip attachments like the ATAS, AMASE and so on.
The only reason why AH-64s in US service have not been normally deployed with ATAS is because they have never had a need for it, nor are they doctrinally needed. You will not see the current AH-64E using them normally either as the wingtips are now being used for a new DIRCM system, yet, they can still mount the ATAS.
As already stated, “did the Japanese MOD buy the US CMWS and LRF systems for the DJP?” the answer is no. Had they installed their domestic equivalents like they planned on doing so this would not be an issue, yet, they did not.
This is not an issue of “can mount”, its that the equipment never existed in Japan as a whole full stop for the AH-64 series of helicopters, it is not at all comparable to the ATAS which not only existed in the US inventory, but also was and still is compatible with a majority of the rotary wing fleet of the US from AH-64A to the current E and a myriad of other aircraft.
Both nations in this regard are held to the same standard as one has equipment that not only exists in US inventory, but also was capable of using them, meanwhile the DJP never had the systems in Japanese inventory while they could use them.
Once again, complain to the Japanese MOD for choosing to not just buy the full package which included all of the systems that are requested.
Again, did Israel ever buy ATAS for their AH-64? What about Sweden? Or Greece? They never even bought it and I don’t remember their evaluation model having them.
So to explain it in similar words to you:
Complain to the Israeli/Swedish/Greek MOD for choosing to not just buy ATAS.
Your argument only works when no other heli gets systems they didn’t use.
Yeah, which is why I said US ATAS is somewhat reasonable, if unfortunate for Japan, but that doesn’t excuse other nations.
Either remove Israeli/Swedish/Greek ATAS or add LWS and MAWS to the D(JP). I’d personally even prefer the first since I’d rather have nation specific configurations than some generic Apache loadout everyone shares.
1 Like
It still gets access to Hellfire K’s, at the same BR as the 64A’s who are limited to Hellfire B’s.
All Helifire users are suffering, they can even hard to deal with some 10.0-10.3 SPAAs
1 Like
Maybe, but the differences between the two are minimal on paper, same everything except explosive filler and 100mm of pen. If it were like the Ataka vs Shturm level difference I’d understand, but these two are nearly identical. Either way I’d rather have the Ataka (10.7) over either of the two 9/10 times, I think most of the Apaches are a touch too high in br regardless. I’ve played Russian, Chinese, and JP top-tier heli’s and these are just the least fun of them all to me
My statement on the matter was already made in the last post, I do not defend export nation AH-64s using ATAS.
This is not my argument, that is the rational that gaijin gave back on the old forums for such occurring with the DJP and the reason IRL as to why they dont have them.
Refer to above, I do not defend foreign nations with ATAS, we both agree that the US and Japan are the only nations present that have a direct 2 piece rational to have ATAS.
Very, if they could be properly IOG launched at targets that cant be directly seen and terminally guided to the target this would be far less of a issue, but thats sadly not the case.
Biggest change is that the Ks are considered tandem while the Bs aren’t. There should be also a substantial improvement to flight path, guidance and IOG but gaijin has chosen to make all hellfires identical outside of the warhead performance for some unknown reason even though thats very much so not the case.
2 Likes
you can? you just need to make sure laser is not activated until it is directed at target 5-10 seconds before impact
I’m talking about point selecting with the map target function and just launching without LOS, you sadly cannot do that as the laser needs to be on prior to launch for some reason.
I’ve tried countless times to fire on masked targets via that feature I’ve always had to peak the TADS out to fire then drop back.
Being able to fire without having to do the initial peak is what I’m talking about.
It used to be 11.3 but they moved it to 11.7 after moving all top tier helicopters
laser does not need to be on prior to launch, and even if for some reason you had to turn it on and off before launch you can do that without peaking to the battlefield
do you have the setting to automatically enable laser on? because thats the only reason I can think you would be having those issues
Remove the Mi-28 from sweden, if i recall they never owned/trialed one other than the one that temporarily landed there/shot down
Its not the laser guidance that is the issue, its that hopping into the TADS resets the point track to anything in front of it even with the autotrack and laser disabled for me.
So if I’m behind a burm and set a target point then pop back into the TADS it resets to the burm instead of staying on the target point, and if I launch in third person the missiles just fly straight for a bit then self destruct or yeet into the ground.
If I instead poke the TADS out at the target point with LOS, and remain in the TADS they then zoom off with IOG towards the map selected point, and I can toggle the laser whenever for terminal guidance.
huh I dont think ive seen that issue, but it might be because I generally dont immediately go to launching without LOS but only do if there are ground based threats up