I mean spikes were cleared for the US apaches sooooo
1 Like
64Es + Spike NLOS specifically.
2 Likes
Maybe if they add 12.3 ground BR with SEPv3 and AH-64E we could see it
doubtful, Spike NLOS outranges even the Pantsir
I dont think it outranges pantsir, but if utilizing trees and terrain pantsir wont detect you as easily, this is where the intro of new maps will play a significant role, players wont be use to looking at specific locations and expecting to get a frag. As long as you can evade detection which is not easy you can get a spike off at a pantsir.
Spike NLOS is 32 - 50 Km range depending on launch platform
1 Like
Well there you go, if introduced you will have access to a very powerful counter.
But again, I think the game should be focusing on producing player skills than lets say players relying on long range missiles since its way too easy to deploy such tactics. This goes for ground aa and cas.
So were AGM-65s cleared for both the 64 and ah-1
1 Like
sweet
You’d also have the AGM-179 JAGM & JAGM-MR (increased range out to 16km and new MWW, SALH & NWIR Imaging tri-modal seeker among other improvements) as well.
2 Likes
that just hit operation and only on the AH-1Z i believe. the 65s have been cleared for a while.
Submitted a bug report to see if they would add it now that a lot of SPAA have more range but there has been no action.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/BiOD6Tc4zWP0
No need to add 12.3 before adding the SEPv3, the 2A7s and 122s are already in game and probably more meta then the SEPv3 will be. Although 12.3 still needs to happen regardless.
Don’t get me wrong, I want the SEPv3 in game a lot and it will close the gap with the 2A7s and 122s a lot, but the Leopards will always fit the meta better than the Abrams will.
I like the cut of your jib.
I mean sepv3 will probably come with other MBT, and hopefully have them raise max br to 12.3. ofc the 2a7 and 2a6 should be moved up to this BR.
Personally I hope they add ah64e with full missile loadouts along with it
1 Like
???
Why would a Leopard 2A6 need to be raised to 12.3? It’s an incredibly average vehicle right now.
1 Like
-65’s were proposed for the 64, but neither the D nor the E model are currently capable of launching them.
Which I guess isn’t really any different than the ATAS, as US 64’s don’t have the capability to launch them either but they are in game
How often they were used I’m not sure. Them capable of doing so i know. Apparently some soldier in the forums has seen it mounted deployed.
As for the D and E not being able to they can.
The capability is there. The use is questionable.
So a little primer, this is my day job. I am an army aviation maintenance/armament officer.
They are capable of mounting them, but there’s a big difference between hanging something on a shackle or launch rail (or even triggering the motor) actually using it.
There was a proposal to mount the LA-117 on the AH64, and it may have even been tested, but it was not adopted/went nowhere. Pretty much any missile or bomb that uses a NATO shackle could theoretically be hung off of a pylon. There has been atleast one proposal of hanging an LAU-118 and HARM off a 64 pylon to give them the capability to defend against IADS but it’s never been developed.
All the weapons on the -64 are databus linked to the airframe through the two weapons processors which are the 64’s “brains” for weapons employment.
It is possible to configure the hard points on an AG64 to accept an LAU-117 launch rail, but the WPS wouldn’t know how to talk to the missile, and without the WPS knowing how to boot/BIT/interface with the missile you couldn’t tell it where to look or which target to acquire.
This is the same problem I alluded to with the the ATAS.
These are the things that get ironed out during testing before an aircraft gets certified for use. The WPS has to be flashed so that it knows how to talk to the missile, and the missile gets programmed so it can receive information from the aircraft.
You also get into/develop solutions for all the nitty gritty like sometimes needing a different launcher because of things like gas cutting on the rails/wings from new/bigger/different missiles, gas ingestion on the engines/debris hitting the airframe etc.
That’s also why sometimes different nations get different weapons on the same platform but they’re not necessarily directly cross compatible.
Highly unlikely as there would no reason to use a Maverick during 99% of OIF/OEF after the initial part of the invasion, and a single Maverick on a LAU-117 weighs more than 4 Hellfires on a M299 rack, and currently a Hellfire 2 gives you more than enough bang to kill any MBT. Most likely he confused a hellfire on a single launch rail with a Maverick from a distance.
TLDR: The (Atleast US ) AH-64 fleet WPS are not currently capable of employing the AGM-65. So while you could mount it, you couldn’t direct/fire it.
Your source article says the JAGM is replacing several missiles used across the fleet. Not all of those missiles are necessarily used by the AH-64
1 Like
Wb premium one?