AH-64D (Longbow) Apache

[RedStorm 0]

Let me start off by saying this is not ann add-on suggestion, though I did contemplate posting this in that forum section. If a moderator feels this would be more at home there, feel free to move it.

Thing is, lately I've heard a lot of people gripe about the exclusion (for the time being at least) of the Mi-24 attack helicopter. I, like most people, find it is sorely missed from the weapons arsenal we have in Armed Assault. It is a lovely helicopter and really does deserve to be in the game, but we shouldn't forget its Western "counterpart"!

Right now I'm going through pilot trials for the Royal Netherlands Airforce, in which I hope I'll fly an AH-64D Apache in the not too distant future. The Apache, more specifically the Delta, is a phenominal aircraft with amazing recon and attack capabilities and really does overshadow the AH-1 we currently have. I remember there being an AH-64A in the original Operation Flashpoint and I loved buzzing through the skies in that baby.

I am pretty confident a form of Apache will be added to Armed Assault, much like it was added to the original Flashpoint. However, there are a couple of things that need to be addressed in my opinion to make the (Longbow) Apache a worthwhile addition.

First of all we will need (semi-) accurate sensor displays and sighting devices. Just having "night vision goggles" will not cut it anymore. We need to whole nine yards, IR-displays, NV, motion trackers, the list goes on. Not all of these can be added to Armed Assault, but I'm pretty confident at least NV and IR are not too difficult to do. This would make the Apache a more deadly fighting machine as you will be able to track heat signals from quite a distance while keeping a low profile, striking at the most oppertune moment. Right now initiating a Hellfire attack with a Super Cobra at night involves flying right over the convoy, hovering in front of them, turning on your lights so your targeting computer can identify the targets, hitting 'TAB' about twenty times in short succession to get a lock, fly away as quickly as you can before the enemy gunners can swiss you and then returning to fire a hellfire. Rinse and repeat. This shouldn't be what a Hellfire surprise attack should look like at all. If realistic AH-64Ds were to be implemented in Armed Assault, we'd need two different models of Delta Apache.

First of all we'd need the AH-64D Longbow Apache, the second would be the AH-64D Apache. Longbow Apaches are equipped with the millimeter-wave fire control radar target acquisition system (FCR in short) which enables them to hover low behind cover, while the FCR paints targets for other AH-64Ds to attack. One in every three AH-64Ds in a squadron is a "Longbow" Apache, and the only way they differentiate from regular AH-64D Apaches is by their FCR, mounted on top of the rotor head. These domes are interchangeable in between 'D' type Apaches, so any AH-64D can be a "Longbow" Apache.

Let's sketch a situation where four Apaches are assigned with taking out a convoy of about eight T80s. One of the Apaches is flying the Longbow configuration, and all four are armed with Longbow Hellfire missiles (Hellfires specifically designed to be used with the FCR, in essence they are 'fire-and-forget' Hellfires). The Longbow Apache takes up position on the flank of the convoy behind some trees while the other three Apaches hover out of sight behind a hill, shielded from any sound or sight by the slope of the hill. The Longbow Apache pops its FCR above the treeline for a quick scan. Immediately, target information is downloaded to the Hellfire missiles of all four Apaches and they all interchange target data and target priority, assigning different targets to each Apache as the FCR scans. All that has to be done now is allow the Hellfires a clean line of fire, deliver the payload and while the Hellfires are on their way to their targets, turn back to base.

Also, for detail's sake, a new helicopter pilot model would be nice if the Apache is ever to be included. The integrated combat helmet used by the Apache is very different to the standard helmet used by a lot of other helicopters. It is called the 'Honeywell M142 intergrated helmet and display sight system' (or IHADSS for short) and is probably the heart of any Apache. For Armed Assault all it'd probably add is the 'nice looking' factor.

I hope a more accurate representation of the Apache can be achieved in Armed Assault, as in Flashpoint it was pretty rudementary.

PS. Also imagine how nice it would look having the AH-1N we have now fly in formation with the Longbow Apache. As far as I know, the AH-1 we have in Armed Assault is also equipped with Longbow Hellfires, which should make it possible to lock on to Longbow-assigned targets. One can only hope...

PS2. Thanks for bearing with me.

PS3. Oh yeah, and merry Christmas in advance.

[Jezza_NL 0]

First of all, ArmA/OFP are infantry-simulators, to simulate infantry-fighting. Anything else such as aircraft serve only a secondary purpose in the game.

Second of all, I doubt the engine support many of the sophisticated features you named such as motion-tracking, or especially IR/Heat seeking.

Third, do you really think it would actually be worth investing all this time in developing a system with multiple helicopters where one assigns the other one targets? This whole system requires trained operators, AI could never do this. To simulate a squadron of Apaches in the tank-hunting situation you sketched would require at least 8 trained and experienced players!

In Flashpoint it was difficult enough to find good pilots who could fly a human infantry squad into and out of trouble using a transport helicopter. It took my squad quite some time to train upto a decent level in competency in Dutch style Air-Mobile operations. The pilot needs to be quite aware of his helicopter and its flying characteristics. Imagine tank hunting with a big and heavy Apache...

On the other hand... Seeing IR and motion tracking capabilities in vehicles in ArmA would be awsome!

What does always suprise me is that the Apache and the Hind are always viewed as each others equivalents. They are not! The Apache does not have the ability to carry a squad of upto 8 troops, and does not have the same level of protection. Only the firepower is roughly comparable. I'm not really into aircraft, but i reckon there is a better East-block equivalent of the Apache.

[Placebo 28]

If it's not an addon suggestion then it doesn't fit in any forum on here, so let's say it is an addon suggestion

[BlackScorpion 0]

What does always suprise me is that the Apache and the Hind are always viewed as each others equivalents. They are not! The Apache does not have the ability to carry a squad of upto 8 troops, and does not have the same level of protection. Only the firepower is roughly comparable. I'm not really into aircraft, but i reckon there is a better East-block equivalent of the Apache.

Agreed. A correct counterpart would be the Mi-28 (which still has room to carry about 3 guys inside the fuselage I think) I guess. Or Ka-52, possibly.

Interesting stuff there, never knew that the Longbow can be actually used for that. Too bad that they propably can't be implemented, though.

[lee_h._oswald 0]

Would be very nice to see the AH-64 in ArmA.

But I hope it will take some time before we see the first, because I hope the first Apache will be a perfect one!

Not an OFP addon converted to ArmA.

MfG Lee

[BlackScorpion 0]

What's wrong with Franzes Apaches?

[xnodunitx 0]

Its already possible to have a helicopter assign a target to another and is already demonstarted by Franze's Apache's and Kiowa's. The OH-58D has an extra "weapon" which is the laser designator,once this has been up for a few seconds,it becomes a target. A longbow in the distance or behind a hill can lock onto this signature and set the hellfire mode to LOBL or LOAL depending no range,then the missile will pretty much find its target.

Even though RKSL will be adding their own longbow,MAS will bring theirs too,Franze's apache isn't really the "usual" type of helicopter,you have to be aware of more then usual,you can't just attack an enemy colum and expect that if you get out with "this" much armor that you made it good,nope,you have to worry about systems failing,some more severe then others.

The apache as most can transport 2 extra soldiers,of course they'll be flying on the outside on the EFABS but hey,its emergency and transport is not its purpose,I don't understand why people compare the Mi-24 to the AH-64,much less AH-64D,its a way more advanced and expensive aircraft,both have their quirks.

We already have AH-64A early version,AH-64A modern,AH-64D with FCR (radar) and AH-64D without radar,OFP may see another release of it being more accurate however its doubtful.

And pilots won't be worked until we can get our hands on Armed Assault tools,it would be foolish to keep OFP pilot models.

The AH-64's also have multiple armament and can be loaded according when an ammo truck or other type of ammo source is availible,there are choices of-

two rocket pods,eight AGM-114's

sixteen AGM-114's

four rocket pods

Two rocket pods,four AGM-114's and one external fuel tank

Although its not textured,here are some images of it,internal and external,both needing some adjustments still,its shown with the extra loadouts which is why there are several weapons on the pylons together,you'll have to overlook the misdone edges though,it was in the process of being sharpened and smoothed so it doesn't get OFP's graphic error.

-FCR

And some 3Dmax renders because it did better with lighting,unfortunatly however it only displays sharp faces.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/9880/longbow3qh8.jpg

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2225/longbow4fu6.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/6466/longbow2te6.jpg

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/2974/cockpitssk7.jpg cockpit detail for pilot and gunner seats and you only see it as this when in the right seats.

AH-64A won't be displayed however as it hasn't had as much work done to it,once pretty much everything is done then it will be ported over the Alpha and fixed up.

[Mr_Tea 0]

Maybe whe get an Apache from BIS via a patch, like the Apache for OFP was introduced in patch 1.2.

I don`t heard if that is planned, but it`s still possible.

[funnyguy1 0]

First of all, It's nice to see your enthusiasm, but I doubt we'll se a decent helo simulation before game2. And I'm not talking about the flight physics (which, according to Suma, will be improoved in the nearest patch), but about the general idea of the vehicles in ofp/vbs/arma.

There are many things that need to be improoved, and those things were suggested years ago (tactics, systems like RADAR; FLIR etc, weapons, physics, armor values etc.), some of them are being implemented to the engine (look at ArmA and promissed upgrades), some of them are some kind of vbs2-only exclusive features (scroll down for the vbs2 vs arma comparison ), the rest will probably be introduced later or has already been cancelled due to the performance issiues (e.g. ragdoll).

I don't know what to think about the game at the current stage of develompent (well, It's relsed now, so everything we'll recieve from now on is something extra from the developers). They did really nice job with "refreshing" the old good ofp, and I'm sure It's what everyone was hoping for while playing all those ffur packs and stuff, on the other hand I don't think that It's not all I was expecting for (e.g tank, helo warfare). I belive It's due to the decission to announce both, game2 and arma at the same time.

I'm still waiting for game2, I suppose.

[Lonewolf1980 0]

if they dont add this to arma i'll be very suprised..i was dissapointed to see no apache and hind in arma 1.0,but i have faith in the devs.

some official word would be great but i dont think they will say anything about what they have planned for arma in the future.there quiet about things like this.

if arma patches are anything like previous ofp patches,we're in for a treat.

[Daniel 0]

First of all, I'd like to say well done for stating your request in such a detailed manner. Second, I'd like to ask why the hell everyone is discounting this so easily? Hell, if we implement a weapon, why not give it all its tactical capability? BIS are a programming team after all. Especially if a mod team has already proven its potential in an out dated engine.

Its like saying hey, we've made an M16 that can only fire one round at a time, but it doesn't matter, it can shoot can't it? That's what matters...

I personally would like to see everything that is officially added to Armed Assault have all the features that tactically affect its use in real life. If that means having quality over quantity so be it. Obviously I agree with the guy that motion trackers would be over looked for common sense sake, likewise it would be a little insane to simulate warping of the barrel or sand getting in an M16.

But if the longbow system affects how Apaches are implemented in combat, it deserves to be reproduced in Armed Assault.

Love the idea of the Cobra hellfires joining in aswell.

[Messiah 2]

Its already possible to have a helicopter assign a target to another and is already demonstarted by Franze's Apache's and Kiowa's.

It was just as succesfully implemented and demonstrated with the BIS Kiowa and Apahce...

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

First of all, ArmA/OFP are infantry-simulators, to simulate infantry-fighting. Anything else such as aircraft serve only a secondary purpose in the game.

It really annoys me when people say this.  That maybe what you think but I know a lot of people don’t agree.  My guess is you have never played any decent aircraft missions.  

The nice thing about OFP/VBS and ArmA's engines is its very flexibility.  It may not have been made for aircraft but the community seems to want Aircraft.  It’s not too hard to find ways to make them practical and it only takes a little more effort on the part of addon makers to add all the funky new features that ArmA "seems" to offer.  Especially now that ArmA can support huge landmasses, aircraft are more practical…

AND if you want to get into real world scenarios: Aircraft are essential, if you want to limit yourself to infantry that’s your call.  But I think the community want to see realistic interaction between Infantry and Aircraft.  Combined forces operations are “reality†and that is something a lot of people are working towards.  Personally the more real world systems we see in ArmA the better and more realistic the game play will get.  

Everyone should be able to make what they want.  Its up to you to decide to play with it or not.  But no one has the right to tell you that you shouldn't make something.

[RedStorm 0]

What does always suprise me is that the Apache and the Hind are always viewed as each others equivalents. They are not! The Apache does not have the ability to carry a squad of upto 8 troops, and does not have the same level of protection. Only the firepower is roughly comparable. I'm not really into aircraft, but i reckon there is a better East-block equivalent of the Apache.

Thanks for the replies everyone!

Here in the Dutch airforce at least the Mi-24 is seen as the closest equivalent of the AH-64D as far as usage, combat history and combat action are concerned. If you don't agree, feel free to give our ministry of defense a ring and tell them to take a serious look at the way they are training their helicopter pilots.

xnodunitx, that's an amazing AH-64D model there! I've had the priviledge of having some cockpit time (no flight time yet unfortunately, just cockpit time ) in a Dutch Apache Delta and it is amazing how you got the cockpit to look so accurate. The external model is, as far as I can tell, also very true to life. Can't wait to see it in Armed Assault!

Daniel, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It would really be rather useless to put an Apache in this game if it'd just be another Cobra or Ka-50 with a different skin. I strongly believe that all helicopters and other weapon systems in this game should have their unique quirks. The Apache's would be that it's a heavily armed, silent (nighttime) stalker/killer. The Cobra would be a brilliant 'sledgehammer' aircraft and the Ka-50 an accurate aerospace penetrator.

PS. Thanks for moving this thread, Placebo. I wasn't sure where to put it, so I guessed General would be good enough. I'll try and guess more accurately next time.

[Scrub 0]

Well if this is going to be an addon request with these features, will ArmA allow them to be added? After looking at the wikis HUD info, I believe so, but I'm not a guru by any means, so please do judge for yourselves...

 

-Could the IR/radar tracking issue be solved by adding a game logic to all vehicles, assign it an IR/radar emitting value dependant on the vehicle type and throttle settings?

-Can the game logic also include vehicle specific aspect info, like:

 Base IR, Radar value - 4,6

 Rear aspect: 8,4

 Front aspect: 1, 3

 Side aspect: 3, 5

 Top: 3,7

 Bottom: 3, 8

(lets say these values float Random +/-1 so they aren't static)

- Can each vehicles sensor suite have a sensitivity level, (also floating) that will not detect an emission less than the given value, with range lessening the contact strength?

- Can the detection use LOS to confirm the honest readability of a contact?  (eg: not be able to detect a helo masking behind a hill with no LOS)

-The new HUD or MFD's CAN draw a marker for each IR/Radar signature (dependant of the aspect of the vehicle even?) that is scaled to a realistic and selectable range. (programmable buttons functions?)

-Can we filter target information for missiles and contact handoffs by these game logics and allow appropriate lockons?  

Please Masters of Modding, do give this some merit      

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

 

-Could the IR/radar tracking issue be solved by adding a game logic to all vehicles, assign it an IR/radar emitting value dependant on the vehicle type and throttle settings?

-Can the game logic also include vehicle specific aspect info, like:

 Base IR, Radar value - 4,6

 Rear aspect: 8,4

 Front aspect: 1, 3

 Side aspect: 3, 5

 Top: 3,7

 Bottom: 3, 8

(lets say these values float Random +/-1 so they aren't static)

- Can each vehicles sensor suite have a sensitivity level, (also floating) that will not detect an emission less than the given value, with range lessening the contact strength?

- Can the detection use LOS to confirm the honest readability of a contact?  (eg: not be able to detect a helo masking behind a hill with no LOS)

-The new HUD or MFD's CAN draw a marker for each IR/Radar signature (dependant of the aspect of the vehicle even?) that is scaled to a realistic and selectable range. (programmable buttons functions?)

-Can we filter target information for missiles and contact handoffs by these game logics and allow appropriate lockons?  

Please Masters of Modding, do give this some merit      

There is a way to improve the tracking, we (RKSL) are planning something along these lines.  But i doubt we'll be able to add in the random scalable values you to want.  The processing power required to map each addon's location and workout the values relative to the 'radar' units position would be huge.  It would cause alot of 'lag' for most users with lower spec PC's making it just not practical.

[Scrub 0]

 

-Could the IR/radar tracking issue be solved by adding a game logic to all vehicles, assign it an IR/radar emitting value dependant on the vehicle type and throttle settings?

-Can the game logic also include vehicle specific aspect info, like:

 Base IR, Radar value - 4,6

 Rear aspect: 8,4

 Front aspect: 1, 3

 Side aspect: 3, 5

 Top: 3,7

 Bottom: 3, 8

(lets say these values float Random +/-1 so they aren't static)

- Can each vehicles sensor suite have a sensitivity level, (also floating) that will not detect an emission less than the given value, with range lessening the contact strength?

- Can the detection use LOS to confirm the honest readability of a contact?  (eg: not be able to detect a helo masking behind a hill with no LOS)

-The new HUD or MFD's CAN draw a marker for each IR/Radar signature (dependant of the aspect of the vehicle even?) that is scaled to a realistic and selectable range. (programmable buttons functions?)

-Can we filter target information for missiles and contact handoffs by these game logics and allow appropriate lockons?  

Please Masters of Modding, do give this some merit      

There is a way to improve the tracking, we (RKSL) are planning something along these lines.  But i doubt we'll be able to add in the random scalable values you to want.  The processing power required to map each addon's location and workout the values relative to the 'radar' units position would be huge.  It would cause alot of 'lag' for most users with lower spec PC's making it just not practical.

Please forgive the ignorant questions of a hopeful:

Since almost all airborne radars scan and therefore have real world delays, could the functions be staggered in this available time to spread the load, lessening the hit? (I don't know how to do this in a function as they run full tilt. Seperate calls in a delayed series maybe?)

For randomness- Would it be reasonable to use (again staggered across time): Base value + RND(2)?  I'm looking for a simple way to introduce that uncertainty or foggy element that OPF'ers love.  A contact at the tattered fringes of the sensors capability, ID unknown.  

The scalable values would be for the MFD's range (realworld values relative to player pos, divided by 'X' for positioning on the display, with range lines)

I'm not a math wiz, so absolute (world coordinate) vector math eludes me, I was hoping for a smallish comapirson of VectorDir commands between the player and the contacts to determine which variable to use for the aspects IR/Radar values.  Drat.. I've now the gut feeling of what a hog this would be.   Thanks for considering, though

@ BIS: Need an LOS function!!!  

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

Please forgive the ignorant questions of a hopeful:

Since almost all airborne radars scan and therefore have real world delays, could the functions be staggered in this available time to spread the load, lessening the hit? (I don't know how to do this in a function as they run full tilt. Seperate calls in a delayed series maybe?)

For randomness- Would it be reasonable to use (again staggered across time): Base value + RND(2)?  I'm looking for a simple way to introduce that uncertainty or foggy element that OPF'ers love.  A contact at the tattered fringes of the sensors capability, ID unknown.  

The scalable values would be for the MFD's range (realworld values relative to player pos, divided by 'X' for positioning on the display, with range lines)

I'm not a math wiz, so absolute (world coordinate) vector math eludes me, I was hoping for a smallish comapirson of VectorDir commands between the player and the contacts to determine which variable to use for the aspects IR/Radar values.  Drat.. I've now the gut feeling of what a hog this would be.   Thanks for considering, though

@ BIS: Need an LOS function!!!  

Well to be really honest this is the sort of thing i would like too. But i know its not practical at the moment even ArmA engine just cant support that degree of complexity.

There are various ways to simulate the randomness of radar for some units like awacs etc but the problem becomes an issues of AI use and the limits/issues with OFP/ArmA's inbuilt 'radar'.  To script something like this for AI use would be very complex.  It would be far easier to make it player only...

BUT you would run into the issue with the engines radar and detection system.  To get it to work you would have to remove every unit’s IRTarget=1 value and replace it with 0.  Effectively making it invisible then scripting a fake IR/Radar target to randomly or not so randomly appear.  It would be rather script heavy and would mean every addon would need to have the same 'standard' radar script.

UNN wrote a subroutine in the Fire Control system that detected the ground position and whether it obscures targets relative to the radar unit.  We may be able do something similar but right now we're really only experimenting.

[BlackAlpha 10]

I noticed with the choppers that the gunner is useless. The gunner can only lock on to the target that the pilot has also locked on. If the pilot didn't lock on to anything, the gunner can't lock on to anything either. The gunner can only lock on to the same target. This makes the gunner useless except for using the machinegun. I only used the choppers in singleplayer so I don't know if it's different in multiplayer.

I think you can still cycle trough the targets with tab but you can't manually target anything. Manual targetting is important because you can only cycle targets with tab once the targets show up as hostiles. They will usually only show up as hostiles once they've spotted or opened fire at you. So you can only use tab once the shit has already hit the van.

With the AI in singleplayer it doesn't really matter much because the AI will just go straight for the enemy. So once you fly over the enemy you can usually press tab because they started shooting at you. But in multiplayer if you try to use tactics and you try to hang back and snipe, it might be a pain to be a gunner. The pilot might aswell just use manual fire and skip the useless step of letting the gunner fire.

Did anyone else notice this? Right now targetting is messed up.

[USSRsniper 0]

heh Apache... fully functional Ah-1, MI-24, and Ka-50 would not be bad either :P because right now flying attack helicopters its like flying  

[xnodunitx 0]

It was just as succesfully implemented and demonstrated with the BIS Kiowa and Apahce...

Oh right. I never really messed with the BIS apache..far too innacurate,had they called it YAH-64 that would be different.

@ RedStorm

Thanks,its taken a good amount of research and several images to get it to look the way I'v wanted it to,though this ones moreso the US Longbow,the Dutch one would require the sensor on the wingtips,which it will of course have once its done.

http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=880457sw5.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3275/874463pm6.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=869947of6.jpg

Although I'd like to have an Apache set for every nation that uses them,at the same time I don't want them to be exactly the same,UK getting all the extra sensors all over the body.

http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1002789tt0.jpg

http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0777061cs6.jpg

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9291/1064343zy0.jpg

However the WAH-64D may not be done as our friends at RKSL will have one.

And of course the other most notable change,the AH-64 Sarif or somethin like that..I forget the exact name.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2213/1058347ww5.jpg

Images relinked to be visible.

There is one more thing I was wondering RedStorm,does the Dutch AH-64D variant have an FCR? So far I haven't found one with the radar.

[MAA3057 0]

I'm glad this topic was created along with thoughtful minds to back it up. If there were a few things that i'd like to see BI add to ArmA, an Apache would well be one of them.

[DrBobcat 0]

Considering the Strela and Stinger shoulder launched missiles are "heat-seeking" in ArmA, I think it's defintely possible to simulate them on vehicles as well. At least, I hope so...

- dRb

[RedStorm 0]

It was just as succesfully implemented and demonstrated with the BIS Kiowa and Apahce...

Oh right. I never really messed with the BIS apache..far too innacurate,had they called it YAH-64 that would be different.

@ RedStorm

Thanks,its taken a good amount of research and several images to get it to look the way I'v wanted it to,though this ones moreso the US Longbow,the Dutch one would require the sensor on the wingtips,which it will of course have once its done.

http://img295.imageshack.us/my.php?image=880457sw5.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3275/874463pm6.jpg

http://img215.imageshack.us/my.php?image=869947of6.jpg

Although I'd like to have an Apache set for every nation that uses them,at the same time I don't want them to be exactly the same,UK getting all the extra sensors all over the body.

http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1002789tt0.jpg

http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=0777061cs6.jpg

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9291/1064343zy0.jpg

However the WAH-64D may not be done as our friends at RKSL will have one.

And of course the other most notable change,the AH-64 Sarif or somethin like that..I forget the exact name.

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2213/1058347ww5.jpg

Images relinked to be visible.

There is one more thing I was wondering RedStorm,does the Dutch AH-64D variant have an FCR? So far I haven't found one with the radar.

Hey xnodunitx,

I seriously can't wait to have a crack at flying those Apaches when they're done! Seeing as there are technically only four countries flying the AH-64D (as far as I know, United States, United Kingdom, The Netherlands and Israel? Correct me if I'm wrong) so I think it's a great idea to portray all the unique features of the individual countries' Apaches!

As to your question about the FCR, no, at the moment we do not have any Longbow configuration Apaches though any one of them can be fitted with an FCR at any time. Well, as soon as we decide to spend the ~3,500,000 Euros for any one individual FCR unit.

Our Apaches depend upon other Longbows to acquire targets for them (British or American Longbow Apaches) so our Apaches can support theirs. Ours have slightly more sensitive sensors mounted and are sometimes even used by police forces to track criminals when police choppers have lost track.

The thing is, factory created two types of AH-64D roll off the Boeing construction line, the Longbow AH-64D and the regular AH-64D. The regular AH-64D does not have the engine upgrades or the FCR, but is otherwise on par with the Longbow. The Dutch AH-64D without the FCR, however, does have the engine upgrades and even the FCR mount. It is really quite confusing. Our Apaches are, in essence, Longbow Apaches - only, well, they don't have the 'Longbow' bit. In the pictures of Dutch Apaches, note the sensor display mount on top of the rotor head. This allows an FCR to be mounted and is part of the sensory upgrade. Again, as far as I know (and that is not nearly as much as you know about Apaches) this is unique to the Dutch aircraft.

Also, the wingtip mounted sensors are a very nice touch for the Dutch Apaches. I have to be honest here and tell you I've personally never seen them mounted so I'm not sure if they're unique to Netherlands Apaches, but they are a very nice touch!

Note that those sensors are not always mounted and will (probably depending on the mission) be substituted for dual-Stinger launchers, so they're not fixed permanently in place. That's all I know about them, as I've personally never seen the sensors or how they operate. I presume they're part of the sensory upgrade Dutch Apaches received over the factory ones to make them a valuable asset to British and American Longbows.

Your work really blows me away. The attention to small details is amazing... even the rotor grips are done true-to-life and look exactly how they should! Keep up the great work.

[wolfbite 8]

Didnt they say its possible to make Ir signatures for the units in armed assault?... im sure placebo said that somewhere....