Nope, was in black and white. As I already said, it was on the ground
I can just look for it tomorrow I guess
1 Like
As far as I’m aware, both of these images were airbrushed to add the launchers in. They’re the same photo of the 1990s “Longbow Apache” prototype, but with two different prospective appearances for the Starstreak launcher. The first image appears to have a revised appearance based on how Starstreak looked after it entered service in the UK in 1997. The Second image at least, was generated as part of the pitch to sell AH-64Ds to the UK - it appeared a lot in MoD pamphlets in the mid-90s for the UK’s future Apaches, before the first WAH-64D prototype flew in 1998.
The only Apache that actually carried and fired Starstreaks used in tests for the US, was the AH-64A shown in the video you posted. Those tests were carried out in the 1996. But AH-64A was displayed in European air shows with Starstreak (and Mistral) as a prospective weapon as far back as 1988 in a bid to generate more European interest in the helicopter.
The 2000/2001 series of tests on AH-64D for the US Army didn’t take place. As outlined in Surbaissemaxxing’s post, it was decided that the engineering challenges couldn’t be overcome, even before any live firings on AH-64D were carried out.
Ultimately both the UK and US AH-64Ds are eligible to have Starstreak. It was proposed for the Longbow Apache for both countries, but never actually fired by the AH-64D by either nation.
1 Like
It’s not that. In order to be able to launch a starstreak, you need a beam rider module, which as far as I know has not been used anywhere else but this Ah-64A.
1 Like
I thought about this from a less biased perspective as someone else made similar points, but I’ll be honest, I can’t see the logic. (Not in your argument but the programme).
Just cancelling was the only logical decision. As a thought exercise I took the argument that to be fair, the Army didn’t concretely know they had no IFV in the future, CVRT replacement was the immediate thing. But then I researched the timeline. Initially, discrediting the IFV side of things is absolutely right about the FRES SV tender. But then it changes. And no, not with the benefit of hindsight.
Should’ve cancelled in 2021. Reason? In 2018 the issues with noise vibrations were internally noted in a report by DE&S, in 2020 they were made public. In March 2021 the Commons Defence Committee released a report with the headline calling it ‘A chronic exercise in programme mismanagement’ blaming primarily the manufacturer and then also the Army. In March 2021 Warrior CSP was ALSO cancelled.
That was the point in time to kill the whole thing, because now you have no IFV either, and you know you need one, you have an AFV-Recce, that’s failed due to your ridiculous requirements and an incompetent manufacturer. Same month, no hindsight needed both things have failed. At that point you go we an IFV can do both, won’t be as good of a scout but will be an IFV and by virtue of that more useful to the wider British Army.
Even though IFV’s were originally a factor, they became one, and we had (and still have to a lesser degree) the perfect out.
Buy the Wales line from GDLSUK. Similar has been done before. Have a clean break, absolve them of coming for further costs involved in their failure to deliver the contract requirements in exchange for a reasonable offer by BAE to purchase the Merthyr Tydfil facility.
This is now harder because some collosal imbecile (that’s the nicest damn thing I can say) authorised IOC which absolved GDLSUK of their major contract point.
The Wales site for GDLSUK is also only an assembly and integration line, there’s no manufacture there. The same is true of CV-90 license production. There’s next to no skill gap and there’s no difference in staffing.You can have a clean break there with GDLS UK after only spending 3.2bn (if we cancelled in 2021) which is 1.3bn less than currently which means ~270 CV-90’s more like 230 when factoring UK turret and manufacture, then buy the line from them.
I’m biased towards CV-90 as it’s a BAE product and I simply think that it’s better. But Lynx would also be suitable.
The problem is the extent of modifications to meet requirements would mean several more years without a replacement. That and most of the problems with Ajax seem to stem from fixable problems that GDLS and the MOD tried to partially mitigate instead of committing to a fix.
Ajax was due to be ready in 2017, the issues are very clearly not fixed and they’ve been trying to fix them internally since 2018 and publicly since 2020. You’re going to have to wait regardless, the difference is with CV-90, or KF-41. You get a replacement for both Warrior and CVRT, with Ajax, you get a replacement for CVRT, and then have to rely on an un-turreted Boxer, or a Boxer with a turret but no tracks, or ideally a boxer with tracks and a turret, that’s 50% more expensive than CV-90 MK.IV and delayed too…
The Army needs to get told to get a grip and use the same vehicle every other country uses with minimal modifications.
If they care about the huge radio that much then remove the seats from the crew compartment and put it there and you’ve got your recce. You can even order the amphibious variant for superior independence :)
I don’t know what the current British obsession is with fighting through flawed and poorly performing procurement programmes.
1 Like
A Meteor fired by a Brazilian Gripen E, 2 cool things we can see, the smoke from the conventional rocket motor is much more visible than the smoke from the Ramjet and the much less agressive loft in comparison with conventional ARH missiles
4 Likes
As far as I understand, ramjet-powered missiles can’t climb too high because the air becomes too thin and there’s not enough oxygen.
Also, why loft in a missile that can just maintain its speed instead.
Lofting is all about maximising a short burst of thrust by convert energy into altitude.
Meteor doesnt really care as much about that
Anyone got sources for the Aim-9M that states that Seeker shut-off works in all-aspect?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/tmSP9xgDcw4T
Because of course, gaijin currently beleives that the Aim-9M seeker shut-off cares about what aspect the target is in and will just go for a flare otherwise.
Does anyone have any solid sources of AJAX’s weight in different armour configurations?
I think you’re misinterpreting their answer. He doesn’t say that IRCCM doesn’t work in front aspect. Rather, he means that such approximate calculations/estimates are not accepted from the players. You need to prove with sources that IRCCM in front aspect will work differently than current implementation.
As it is, the question is interesting. In 2 years, no one has yet been able to answer me why 9m works this way in the front aspect. Maybe (just a theory) this is done for balance, because the missiles with such irccm would be too strong. In most cases, it would be unreal to evade it.
I think the interpretation is simple.
We must prove common sense with sources that likely dont exists.
But of course Gatewidth works in front aspect and doesnt need primary sources to prove that its IRCCM works in front aspect
1 Like
They can’t accept reports on such basis. This will simply destroy the entire bug reporting system.
The response there doesn’t deny the ascertain, just you haven’t provided evidence. And no we don’t forward on the basis of common sense…
2 Likes
Okay, so do you have any sources for Aim-9M IRCCM working in all-aspect? / Do the devs have any sources for it ONLY working in rear-aspect?
I considered it a bug and not as a historical accuracy issue, which is why I didnt think sources would be needed as obviously the IRCCM should work in any aspect and was probably a bug.
3 Likes
I don’t you why you would think you wouldn’t need a source to change the behaviour of something. That’s never been the case.
I’ve added my own materials.
2 Likes
If for example I wanted to report something like Harrier landing gear travel times I of course would find sources for that where possible because that is obviously a historical modeling issue.
But something like this I would consider buggy, unintended behaviour, a game issue not necessarily a historical accuracy issue. For example, I wouldnt expect to need primary sources to report that this is wrong: Harrier II rudder/roll instability during turns
(P.S can you please forward that report, ive been trying for months with a dozen different TMs and even Smin)
But thank you for adding sources for this
Sooo, AIM-9M basically the most underperforming IR missile in-game?
-
Should have 35G overload (currently 30)
-
Should have 30°/s track rate (currently 22)
-
Should have vastly better lock range in both rear aspect and front aspect (like 3x as much)
-
Suspension tracking should work much better as it is missing crucial systems like Flare Rate Bias and Push Ahead (would more effectively ignore flares)
-
Suspension tracking should work in front aspect
-
Should have smokeless motor instead of a low smoke
-
Guidance currently bugged making it nearly useless
2 Likes