BVV_d already said it won’t get countermeasures.
1 Like
When?
Near the end of the Russian dev stream.
1 Like
Was it before, or after the report was accepted?
Seems intentional but I could be wrong.
It very well could be, but as the report for the ALQ-211 was rejected due to a lack of evidence( alternate sources have been presented in the RAH-66 avionics topic). There isn’t much to confirm things one way or the other.
But if Gaijin are going to add prototypes they may as well get them right, and as nothing has been said about their particular configuration it should be on the table.
Even if it is a premium, not in the tech tree. Though it is absolutely being done dirty considering the various missing ordnance.
It really does suck considering this appears to be the extent of Gaijin’s years worth of research into the vehicle, when all it too was one keyword search into an archive, and 30 minutes of reading to turn something up.
8 Likes
Before in this case. This was before the Russian dev stream ended and dev opened after that.
It was more so to highlight that that statement was made, without certainty that he had considered all of the information, also as it’s not in English there is some room for the lack of context to make certain that that the intent is sufficiently clear in a given translation.
I intend to ask a CM in the Rumor roundup if it should still be considered current, considering the provided reports postdate the claim. when the Devblog appears, as it may answer the question.
Also the effective difference between the APR-39 and ALQ-211, if there would be any may be handy to have on hand to make the case for one or the other, if there is anything to be found.
Seems like the ALQ-211 would be a significant upgrade.
Also the APR-39A(V)1 should have synthetic aural warnings, and a digital display apparently, when compared to the baseline APR-39(V)1.
3 Likes
I’ll remake an ALQ-211 RWR report, based off the above brochure. and cross reference the APR-39 one see what they say.
Now live:
1 Like
What did they mean by this?
“not enough info”
ALQ-211 is the name for the complete self-protection system, not an individual RWR.
That doesn’t make any sense, the ALQ-221(V)3 performs the role of the RWR, as it is modular, it is its designation. the RWR is not a distinct component but a module of the system. And anyway how is that grounds for the “Not Enough Info” tag?
1 Like
ALQ-211 is a suite, your brochure confirms that, note “ALQ-211 V3” comprises of a LWR where as V1 doesn’t contain an LWR.
Does it not state “> Precision Digital Radar Warning” as the first element(s) in the (V)3 “scout” column?
Ahh I can see the crossed wires here, ALQ-211 is a suite of systems, that contains among other things an RWR. The actual name for the RWR won’t be ALQ-211V3, it will be an “APR” denoted system that’s part of the ALQ-211V3 suite.
But the System does have a RWR module, if it’s bespoke it may not have an APR-XX designation, as it would be a set of LRU’s within the suite itself.
If I had to guess, it would at minimum be the AN/APR-39A(V)1, as is indicated in the other report but I can’t be certain that it wasn’t replaced.
So what the TM is asking for, is the name of the RWR itself. ALQ-211V3 confirms it has an RWR, but not specifically which one. Which is what the devs will need.
That’s is the issue it may not be named at all as it is a subcomponent of an already existing designated system and the organization responsible for maintaining JETDS will avoid handing out redundant classifications, it might have an NSN-D number, but as it did not proceed past FSD stage it’s probably not current.
Yeah I don’t buy that, the same brochure has ALQ-211V1 on the 64D;
Under which it lists an RWR, ELS and Jamming. We know the name of the RWR used on AH-64D, so I can’t see why the RAH-66 with the same family of systems would break that convention.
It’s not that we don’t know what it could be, it’s likely the AN/APR-39A(V)1 (as outlined in this report). It’s that I can’t find anything that confirms it wasn’t changed when the ALQ-211(V)3 was introduced to the program, or link the two sources together.
Theoretically the following excerpt covers all pertinent features covered in the brochure , it’s just that there is no confirmation that it wasn’t changed.
2 Likes
I do wonder if there is a possibility that it could be the AN/APR-39E(V)2 given the ALQ-211V3 states that the system is a digital RWR which is one of the main improvements the AN/APR-39E(V)2 brings to the table.
Too new to be on rah-66