AH-64E Bugs, suggestions, feedback

Dev Server "Tusk Force" General Discussion - Dev Server
,
1

Thread to collect all the bugs of the upcoming AH-64E

Bugs:

  • Sensors

    • Sight magnification is too low [not reported]
    • Radar lacks the Extended range mode (16km) [not reported]

  • Armament

    • JAGM lacks prox fuse against aerial targets [not reported]
    • JAGM penetration is too low [not reported]
    • M230E1 Chaingun missing LW30 Prox proximity fuse round [not reported]

  • ASE

    • Missing 60 more countermeasures (should be 90 in total) [not reported]
    • Incorrect MAWS, missing the 5th bottom facing MAWS sensor [not reported]

  • Visual model

    • Incorrect main rotor blades [not reported]
    • ALQ-144 IRCM should be removed [not reported]
    • Missing the white canopy glass outline [not reported]
    • Base color for unpainted elements and for hit decals should be mint/green [not reported]

  • Flight model is currently a AH-64D copy-paste, the AH-64E should have improved GE-701D engines, new gearbox that was a limiting factor even for the AH-64D, and the new longer composite rotor blades.

15 Likes
2

biggest thing is missing its LDIRCM

and its missiles are under preforming because they look like hellfires and gaijin hates that

6 Likes
3

It has the model on the wingtips, so it most likely will get it in a later dev server.

4

Instead of the outer pylons limited to the Hellfire Ks, it should instead be JAGM-MR (laser only). The Hellfire Ks suck a lot, especially in top tier.

1 Like
5

OP updated

6

179s are supposed to be mach 1.5 = 545 M/S

2 Likes
7

I was searching for a source that Gaijin would take that states 1.5m but could not scrape anything yet

2 Likes
8

Has the wrong engine as well

Currently labeled as T700-GE-701C when it should be T700-GE-701D
(probably placeholder)

3 Likes
9

Should have the APR-39E with C-M frequency and bigger library of threats

3 Likes
10

yeah the flight model is copy-paste from AH-64D

2 Likes
11

the C-D band is not unique to the APR-39E, the current RWR that is installed on the AH-64A/D should cover those bands as well, but there is a reason why gaijin removed this and APR-39E would be no different.

12

from what i’ve seen the have time to target of around 26 second for 8km, which is much faster than the current AGM-114K
so the stat cart might be wrong

13

Whatever reason they pull out of their ass is wrong, the literal manufacturer says C to M for the APR-39E…

14

Don’t expect gaijob to fix anything. It’s an American Helicopter afterall

5 Likes
15

appears to be working

1 Like
16

At this pace, we might see meaningful changes for the AH64E , if the subject gains enough traction.
Maybe even JAGM for AH-1Z? That would be nice , I dont particularly look forward to 410k RP+80k RP for a JAGM Carrier.

17

Denied by Smin

18

It might not be too late to change that, it is the dev-server after all.
(Im inhaling gaseous hopium)

3 Likes
19

Honestly the AH-64E should just replace the AH-64D in the tech tree. The difference between the A and E is enough of a difference in the tech tree. The D vs E is just stupid. If they decide to add the Longbow hellfire, that’d justify the D in the tech tree.

20

I agree with this, but some people that enjoy the 64D (if they exist) , might want to hold on to it.
I would love for this to happen , but it likely wont.

1 Like