ATAS was tested with both the AH-64A and AH-64D, so imagine them as being more prototype-oriented, having technology that was later built into other AH-64s, like the AH-64DJP. However, no other AH-64 besides those three should have ATAS.
The ATAS capability was fully developed/fielded. But the Army decided the capability wasn’t that useful, and has divested itself of them and mounted other things in the places the Stingers went, as well as used the space in the WPS for other toys.
Fielding the ATAS again would be a relatively straight forward process. We just don’t currently have that capability. Other nations still employ that capability, the “airframe” is capable of using them it’s just a nation/airframe specific modification question.
Yes, and for whatever reason, the Army didn’t decide to explore it or develop it. If they had, you’d likely be able to find more than one grainy photo from a brochure.
It’s also very common for sales brochures/flyers/advertisements to mock up a system before it’s actually fully capable or developed.
1 Like
Aa you stated the army chose not to go forward with it. The guy does exist i tried telling him he was mistaken but in my effort to show him it was never a thing i discovered Raytheon’s brochure. I am not surprised the army didn’t go with the 65 it’s a lot of unnecessary weight. From what i can tell the 64 like the AH-1 could be given the AGM-65 with little issues. But like the ATAS was not persued because it would be pointless.
That being said for all sense of WT. Like the ATAS it was something that existed. It would also be something that could fill the requested capability without adding the 114L.
I saw the posts. He’s simply wrong.
However, unlike the ATAS, there’s nothing indicating that the Ratheon brochure was ever tested or anything more than just a mock up proposal.
I think adding the -65 just because a single photo shows a mock up sets a bad precedence. As like I said, virtually any weapon with a NATO shackle could be mounted to virtually any aircraft with NATO hard points. Where do we draw the line?
While i agree one could make an argument the precedent was already made with the YAK.
Personally i would rather not continue with that precedent and the AH-64 doesn’t receive mavs. But at the same time 114Ls would be too powerful IMO for the game.
1 Like
It’s happened with several different vehicles. Hell one of the best anti air units in the game is a 10.3 light tank that is vaporware and another is a 9.0 SPAA that never actually worked.
But I don’t think there’s a huge capability gap
With the 64’s (or any rotary wing) air to ground weapons that needs to be addressed before the SPAA’s have the ability to actually counter them
1 Like
I don’t see it as an capability gap but as an compromise to peoples requests. A lot of people been asking for FnF missiles for the 64. The mavs will fulfill that request while also not being that insane.
They are a slow missile max range from an Helo will probably be 10-12 km. The aircraft will also be limited to a max of 4 on the AH-64 and 2 on the AH-1. Add that with their weight being so much the flight performance of the helo will be hampered.
Give the ability of an FnF but one that is not going to break the game.
Me personally i would prefer them to fix the laser guided hellfires.
1 Like
Imagine if it was the standard in some cases for balance, we could have had the Ka-50 with 6-rack Atakas instead of plowing it into the game with Vikhrs and making it the clowncopter, destroying top tier for years and launching powercreep by necessitating fire and forget missiles for anything close to a comparable weapon.
It’s also kinda late, there’s not much more supporting the use of Zunis on the AH-1W beyond a photo of an AH-1J or T with them fitted.
I mean I would like to see the hellfires fixed too, but I think we need fixed IR missiles/helicopter heat signatures and F&F radars guided ground to air missiles before we worry about F&F hellfires.
But I agree, 16 L model 114’s would probably be game breaking unless they find a way to balance them out.
1 Like
of course gaijin will add the t14 first, then the abrams sep v3 might come!
You lost me on the one, you’ll have to explain. The Zuni is the standard *edit sorry 5 inch, 2.75 is the Hydra rocket used by the US military.
The W, and Z Cobras are very much still using them today (along with the UH-1Y). Well the Zulu is as the W is retired.
Do you mean the guided version of the Zuni?
I haven’t seen anything to suggest the Zuni has been fitted to either AH-1W, Z or Y. 2.75 inch 7, 19 unguided and APKWS pods sure. 4 shot Zuni pods: nope, just this image of an early twin cobra:
And you probably won’t, because they get about 1/100th the use the 2.75’s do, as they’re probably close to being obsoleted.
Wouldn’t be shocked to find out we donated most of our useable stocks to Ukraine.
Idk much about apaches in Greek service
1 Like
The Greeks have (or are awaiting delivery) Spikes in service so I don’t think it would be a huge stretch to imagine if they aren’t currently, very shortly they should have that capability.