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
The RWR is claimed to be a digital one, no digital RWR existed at the time of the RAH-66, given it is a bleeding edge development it would not be unheard of this tech being developed on the RAH-66 and is now being added to current systems.
Yeah, but E2 is still in testing/just starting procurement irl, as of today I think it’s in IOC right now.
It is impossible for it to have been on Comanche
Main processor became digital, the rest is still the same 39(V) and in Grumman’s marketing materials it still only seems to refer to it as “Precision Radar Warning” without the “Digital” prefix across a few of their marketing materials.
Hence why I’m thinking something else must have changed within the setup.
Rather interesting here that the processor upgrade that the (V1) has is quoted as the phase 1 upgrade for the AN/APR-39 family, with phase 2 being the digitization of the series, with phase 2 supposedly occurring sometime in 2009.
Editing to avoid a double post, but some nice pictures to add.
With how gimped Stinger’s are currently it shouldn’t go up in BR because of them.
3 Likes
For what its worth as well, having more ATAS does not really make it better in a majority of situations as well, it just makes it heavier.
9 times out of 10 you would never need more than 4 stingers in a normal battle, bringing the full 28 is grand overkill that only exists for the PVE mode against planes and trying to roleplay that you are a missile circus. The latter wont really improve your ability to shoot down players.
It should still be a option, but it is very much so not worth a BR increase.
yeah gaijin wont even give stingers their 22 g turn, shows how they hate U.S Tech.
Yes it will, because you can make a plane waste all its flares, therefore increasing your chance at a kill.
Imean it should get teh L version of the Hellfire wich are F&F
sooooo
1 Like