Jump to content

Boeing AH-64D - Apache "Longbow"


kev2go
 Share

Woudl you like to see this added?  

152 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like to See the Ah64D Longbow get added as a Top Tier 6 attack helicopter?

    • Yes, For USA , Japan and the UK ( License built Westland Apache)
      117
    • Only for USA
      31
    • NO
      4
  2. 2. Where should it be placed in the US lineup?

    • After Ah1Z as the final Attack Helicopter
      74
    • Different lineup : Say somewhere After UH1B?
      55
    • Don't Know.
      19
    • I voted "No" in the first question.
      4
  3. 3. What b.r Should it Reciever?

    • 9.7
      5
    • 10.0
      54
    • Higher than 10.0
      88
    • I voted "No" in the first question.
      4


16 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

Articles that dont list thier sources vs actual  manual hmmmm...

 

Its not mine, the op that created this thread linked it as as source.  Dated 2002. And thats revision that detials the ah64d block 2 to the original 1998 block 1.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes and if you want to create a vehicle you want to use the historical data available to you

 

 

 

Yea except its not an ah64d. its  called  the AH64E  guardian which was produced since 2011 introduced since 2012. Many older ah64d longbows have been rebuilt into ah64e. Over the years since.

 

 

However this Not not the helicopter  suggested here.

 

Japanese ah64d can not us army.

The ones that can are the ah64e.

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is in outdated book published in 1998. Back then the ah64d was only starting its first year of army service during 1998

 

Manual want declassified at the time. So janes was making this publication basedd purely on personal analysis and guestimates at that time. Ah64d was only experimentally tested with sidewinders. 

 

 

 

Yea again thats ah64e as the ah64d hasnt in production since at least 2010, this article is from 2016.

An actual manual from which year? Hmmm

 

Vs newer articles hmmmm.

 

And outdated datas, like obviously yours, are not historical correct according to Jane's.

 

Who is talking about japanese? I am talking about US versions.

 

There is a newer version of Jane's book. I have it right here as PDF.

 

And again 3 newer sources that says the AH-64D uses Sidwinder against you outdated manual from, let me guess, the 90s? Hmmm

 

Again even if it's an official manual if it's outdated you have to use newer sources.

Edited by DrEvil__
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator

Hehe and I thought the WAH-64 caused controversy when I brought up Brimstone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, DrEvil__ said:

An actual manual from which year? Hmmm

 

Vs newer articles hmmmm.

 

You need a lesson of which sources are held to a higher standing and which are deemed more.

 

Manuals 》 journalist articles. 

 

 As already explained ( but failed to comprehend) this applies to a newer model of the ah64. The ah64e guardian, not the ah64d longbow.

 

 

 

 

message-editor%252F1535043202290-apache-

 

 

 

message-editor%252F1535041838829-ah-64e-

 

 

 

Quote

Again even if it's an official manual if it's outdated you have to use newer sources.

 

An article is too general. Its not a valid source to use for research or bug reporting over a manual. Unless youve g0t no other more concrete which on that chase you shouldn't model a vehicle thst you dont have concrete enough information on to begin with

Edited by RanchSauce39
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/03/2019 at 12:22, RanchSauce39 said:

 

You need a lesson of which sources are held to a higher standing and which are deemed more.

 

Manuals 》 journalist articles. 

 

 As already explained ( but failed to comprehend) this applies to a newer model of the ah64. The ah64e guardian, not the ah64d longbow.

 

 

 

 

message-editor%252F1535043202290-apache-

 

 

 

message-editor%252F1535041838829-ah-64e-

 

 

 

 

An article is too general. Its not a valid source to use for research or bug reporting over a manual. Unless youve g0t no other more concrete which on that chase you shouldn't model a vehicle thst you dont have concrete enough information on to begin with

According to Jane's it's 100% the D version. I have no idea why you always come up with the E. I am still talking about the D version.

 

An outdated manual is still an outdated manual.

 

And you are right. A vehicle shouldn't be based on outdated manuals.

Edited by DrEvil__
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DrEvil__ said:

According to Jane's it's 100% the D version.

 

 

An article you posted as your " source" last page: which was quoting reports from "Janes"

 

 

On 27/03/2019 at 06:42, DrEvil__ said:

 

 

Article was  written in 2016 and to ( which it seems you didnt read since)  quote:

 

 

 

"Apaches currently cannot carry a dedicated air-to-air weapon unless the operators buy an upgrade kit. Even then, the missiles have to be mounted on the outer wingtips instead of on actual weapons pylons.

But missile maker Raytheon and Apache maker Boeing reached an agreement in May to incorporate the attachments for the air-to-air Stinger missile into all new Apaches starting in 2018, Jane's reports."

 

 

 

 

These "all new" Apaches are AH64E's considering as we established AH64D's are no longer in production for a number of years at this point.

 

 

 

Also remind

 

 

On 28/03/2019 at 11:22, RanchSauce39 said:

 

 

 

message-editor%252F1535043202290-apache-

 

 

 

message-editor%252F1535041838829-ah-64e-

 

 

 

 

An article is too general. Its not a valid source to use for research or bug reporting over a manual. Unless youve g0t no other more concrete which on that chase you shouldn't model a vehicle thst you dont have concrete enough information on to begin with

 

 

 

 

 

So yes janes is very much referring to the AH64E. So nice try m8 at attempting to manipulate which variants have A2Aand new AGTM capability within US Army in operational service.

 

 

Quote

 

 

I have no idea why you always come up with the E. I am still talking about the D version.

 

because you are wrong. Ah64E as i have provided proof above was the version that has these features. given the time frame of its introduction and the integration of those new weapons.

 

How can a AH64D have these features that were integrated 2016 and later,  after  AH64E was already introduced 4 years earlier and began replacing the AH64D that is no longer produced. :facepalm:.

 

As pointed outed out the quote from the very article you linked earlier, these arent Ah64D's but the AH64E's that have gotten these features and only very recently in 2018.

 

 

 

Quote

An outdated manual is still an outdated manual.

 

As opposed to pulling capabilities out of wikis,  articles or completely out of ones rear end? no

 

Besides outdated or not as established AH64D block 1 nor Ah64D block 2 does not have these features, After Ah64D block 2 the AH64E was introduced. which would have been following years of the AH64E introduction  these features were officially entering operational service.

 

You wont see any more revised manuals for the AH64D because its no longer in production nor being updated in US army. AH64E is the new current service attack helo, and besides new production models , AH64D's are being rebuilt to that standard.

 

 

Go start a Ah64E suggestion thread if you want your desired weapons systems on an Apache.platform instead of forcing it into a  earlier variant that didn't.

 

Quote

And you are right. A vehicle shouldn't be based on outdated manuals.

 

Dont falsify claims or twist my words.

 

 

 

Edited by RanchSauce39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/04/2019 at 02:06, RanchSauce39 said:

 

 

An article you posted as your " source" last page: which was quoting reports from "Janes"

 

 

 

 

Article was  written in 2016 and to ( which it seems you didnt read since)  quote:

 

 

 

"Apaches currently cannot carry a dedicated air-to-air weapon unless the operators buy an upgrade kit. Even then, the missiles have to be mounted on the outer wingtips instead of on actual weapons pylons.

But missile maker Raytheon and Apache maker Boeing reached an agreement in May to incorporate the attachments for the air-to-air Stinger missile into all new Apaches starting in 2018, Jane's reports."

 

 

 

 

These "all new" Apaches are AH64E's considering as we established AH64D's are no longer in production for a number of years at this point.

 

 

 

Also remind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So yes janes is very much referring to the AH64E. So nice try m8 at attempting to manipulate which variants have A2Aand new AGTM capability within US Army in operational service.

 

 

 

because you are wrong. Ah64E as i have provided proof above was the version that has these features. given the time frame of its introduction and the integration of those new weapons.

 

How can a AH64D have these features that were integrated 2016 and later,  after  AH64E was already introduced 4 years earlier and began replacing the AH64D that is no longer produced. :facepalm:.

 

As pointed outed out the quote from the very article you linked earlier, these arent Ah64D's but the AH64E's that have gotten these features and only very recently in 2018.

 

 

 

 

As opposed to pulling capabilities out of wikis,  articles or completely out of ones rear end? no

 

Besides outdated or not as established AH64D block 1 nor Ah64D block 2 does not have these features, After Ah64D block 2 the AH64E was introduced. which would have been following years of the AH64E introduction  these features were officially entering operational service.

 

You wont see any more revised manuals for the AH64D because its no longer in production nor being updated in US army. AH64E is the new current service attack helo, and besides new production models , AH64D's are being rebuilt to that standard.

 

 

Go start a Ah64E suggestion thread if you want your desired weapons systems on an Apache.platform instead of forcing it into a  earlier variant that didn't.

 

 

Dont falsify claims or twist my words.

 

 

 

So many words, so less meanings. Still, I am talking about the AH-64D. Jane's mentioned it already back in 2015. Look it up and stick to the topic or leave. Thank you.

Edited by DrEvil__
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 05/04/2019 at 10:27, DrEvil__ said:

So many words, so less meanings. Still, I am talking about the AH-64D. Jane's mentioned it already back in 2015. Look it up and stick to the topic or leave. Thank you.

You didn't even read any of it :facepalm:

Just accept that you won't get the loadouts you want out of this hypothetical vehicle addition, The sourcework cites against your word and there is no arguing against it.

 

Quote

Besides outdated or not as established AH64D block 1 nor Ah64D block 2 does not have these features, After Ah64D block 2 the AH64E was introduced. which would have been following years of the AH64E introduction  these features were officially entering operational service.

 

You wont see any more revised manuals for the AH64D because its no longer in production nor being updated in US army. AH64E is the new current service attack helo, and besides new production models , AH64D's are being rebuilt to that standard.

^This is your answer, Your suggestions loadout is false, deal with it.

Edited by CaptainBallistic
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CaptainBallistic said:

You didn't even read any of it :facepalm:

Just accept that you won't get the loadouts you want out of this hypothetical vehicle addition, The sourcework cites against your word and there is no arguing against it.

 

^This is your answer, Your suggestions loadout is false, deal with it.

And you should do some research :facepalm:

 

"Typically AGM-114 Hellfire variants; AIM-92 Stinger may also be carried" That's for the 4 hard point. The Stinger for the wingtips are separately mentioned. Makes it total 12 AIM-02 Stinger and an air combat monster.

And read carefully the "AH-64D Apache" in the headline from this sheet from 2015.

 

Can you please stop coming with the AH-64E now? That would be great.

 

Just accept you keep riding on outdated manual. My suggestion is correct. Your infos are just outdated. Period.

ah-64d.JPG

ah-64d2.JPG

Edited by PaganMin_
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, PaganMin_ said:

And you should do some research :facepalm:

 

"Typically AGM-114 Hellfire variants; AIM-92 Stinger may also be carried" That's for the 4 hard point. The Stinger for the wingtips are separately mentioned. Makes it total 12 AIM-02 Stinger and an air combat monster.

And read carefully the "AH-64D Apache" in the headline from this sheet from 2015.

 

 

 

Quote

Can you please stop coming with the AH-64E now? That would be great.

 

Just accept you keep riding on outdated manual. My suggestion is correct. Your infos are just outdated. Period.

 

no because other sources some of which refering Janes ( including one you posted) clearly stated Stingers were only going to be integrated on newly built Apaches starting in 2018.... ANd those are AH64E's.

 

Quote

ah-64d.JPG

ah-64d2.JPG

 

 

US army AH64D doesnt carry CRV7 rockets. Those are only used by the Brits. on thier Liscense built Westland Apaches.

 

They basicacally used an amalagtion of various AH64D's and listed those as features. Very amaturish of them to copy paste wikipedia stats.

 

Just as those A2A missiles would only be applicable to some foreign operators of the AH64D or liscense built derivatives.

 

So that information is invalid to this suggestion which would be a veyr specifically a US Army based Ah64D.

Edited by RanchSauce39
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, PaganMin_ said:

And you should do some research :facepalm:

 

"Typically AGM-114 Hellfire variants; AIM-92 Stinger may also be carried" That's for the 4 hard point. The Stinger for the wingtips are separately mentioned. Makes it total 12 AIM-02 Stinger and an air combat monster.

And read carefully the "AH-64D Apache" in the headline from this sheet from 2015.

 

Can you please stop coming with the AH-64E now? That would be great.

 

Just accept you keep riding on outdated manual. My suggestion is correct. Your infos are just outdated. Period.

 

LOL you trust a poorly written Nato sheet over actual American Military documentation, your first mistake.

By your logic, every manual known for any previous varient is outdated, a very convenient stance to make so you can ignore actual official sourcing in favor of literall 3rd party observations.

 

I never said anything about the AH-64E, In fact till now I was just lurking the thread. It is very clear to me that you are fudging your facts completely after reading both sides worth of sourcework. And btw the only reason the E varient is being brought up is because that is the correct varient to suggest for such a loadout, Nobody is going to stop bringing up facts just because you don't like them. 

 

Your suggestion is proven false several times now, The D model doesn't use your precious missile, either suggest the E model instead or deal with it.

Edited by CaptainBallistic
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

 

 

 

no because other sources some of which refering Janes ( including one you posted) clearly stated Stingers were only going to be integrated on newly built Apaches starting in 2018.... ANd those are AH64E's.

 

 

 

US army AH64D doesnt carry CRV7 rockets. Those are only used by the Brits. on thier Liscense built Westland Apaches.

 

They basicacally used an amalagtion of various AH64D's and listed those as features. Very amaturish of them to copy paste wikipedia stats.

 

Just as those A2A missiles would only be applicable to some foreign operators of the AH64D or liscense built derivatives.

 

So that information is invalid to this suggestion which would be a veyr specifically a US Army based Ah64D.

 

You have it right here written on paper and you still deny it. That's hilarious :lol2:

 

And it's not copy paste wikipedia stats. Stats from Jane's.

 

Are you just trolling around? :facepalm:

It says clearly 100% AH-64D. Deal with it. If you find a newer source that came out AFTER 2015 that says the AH-64D is NOT getting/having it you can come back again. Until then: bye :lol2:

7 hours ago, CaptainBallistic said:

 

LOL you trust a poorly written Nato sheet over actual American Military documentation, your first mistake.

By your logic, every manual known for any previous varient is outdated, a very convenient stance to make so you can ignore actual official sourcing in favor of literall 3rd party observations.

 

I never said anything about the AH-64E, In fact till now I was just lurking the thread. It is very clear to me that you are fudging your facts completely after reading both sides worth of sourcework. And btw the only reason the E varient is being brought up is because that is the correct varient to suggest for such a loadout, Nobody is going to stop bringing up facts just because you don't like them. 

 

Your suggestion is proven false several times now, The D model doesn't use your precious missile, either suggest the E model instead or deal with it.

NATO sheets are military documentation. What do you think the NATO is?

First mistake you made: thinking the NATO is not a military organisation.

This paper says it clearly, and I don't get why it's so hard to understand for you, that the AH-64D has such a loadout and not only the E.

Deal with it.

  • Confused 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PaganMin_ said:

NATO sheets are military documentation. What do you think the NATO is?

First mistake you made: thinking the NATO is not a military organisation.

NATO covers NATO, not a US helicopter under US control, AND that is formatted as if it was from the wiki page, so hardly a "military document".

 

Quote

This paper says it clearly, and I don't get why it's so hard to understand for you, that the AH-64D has such a loadout and not only the E.

 

Let me use YOUR OWN SOURCE for a second.

Spoiler

Capture.PNG.05c5b9a6dc2bd44b0428cc455495

For a European NATO ALLY you may have a case, even then the loadout restriction is there at that time.

 

also, keyword in your second source is "may", which coincides with your last sources highlighted statement requiring an upgrade kit to be bought, something you have no sources america did for the D varient.

 

Spoiler

Capture2.PNG.6c6a51a84342cada87b6a445269

If you want an American vehicle in the American tech tree with such a loadout you need to provide AMERICAN sources, not a blanket NATO sheet looking like it was formatted by a high school student writing a wiki article.

 

Even your own source refutes you.

 

Quote

Deal with it.

 

Spoiler

createcard.jpg.b7e8752c48049a0d84b230c96

 

Edited by CaptainBallistic
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

+1

 

It would be beneficial if we had some serious BR decompression or something.  It would be beneficial if we had current top tier at like 14.0 Br or the actual BRs the Leopard 2A5 was listed as during the April Fools event.  If we had a higher Br, we could have a more stretched out BR to work with — then this thing doesn’t have to be the same BR as vehicles like the AH-1Z or whatever, which probably shouldn’t be the same BR as this.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator
18 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

+1

 

It would be beneficial if we had some serious BR decompression or something.  It would be beneficial if we had current top tier at like 14.0 Br or the actual BRs the Leopard 2A5 was listed as during the April Fools event.  If we had a higher Br, we could have a more stretched out BR to work with — then this thing doesn’t have to be the same BR as vehicles like the AH-1Z or whatever, which probably shouldn’t be the same BR as this.

I do agree that some decompression and rebalancing is needed, seeing as we have WW2 jets supporting modern MBT's which really makes no sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I know this has been laid to rest already, but I was shared some information, from a later manual documenting the last  version of the Ah64D, The  block 3 from 2012, which i will post some excerpts of here. The last iteration of the AH64D  longbow before a further newer evolved  production  with new designation; The AH64E Guardian came into service.

 

Spoiler

 

kIGYaYs.png

 

 

kA1bHYS.png

 

 

 

KwDWECr.png

 

 

HnhmGDp.png

 

 

jlxclKV.png

 

 

 

 

 

 So  with that we can confidently 100% clarify that   from AH64D variations in US Army service doesn't get any other weapons types.

 

 

Edited by RanchSauce39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have a feeling that this thing may come soon, the press for modern vehicles is growing and more choppers are being added with each update, I will be happy and sad when it arrives, happy for the fact it is going to be the best chopper in the game hands down, sad for the fact it will likely replace my AH-1Z which I have grown to love despite it's mildly broken flight model. 

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

@RanchSauce39 @PaganMin_ @CaptainBallistic  I don't know what you all are arguing about, but both the AH-1Z and Apache could carry four stingers. I saw this with my own eyes near Yuma Air Force Station. They have the Ability to Carry the Missiles on the hard points just like they carry hellfires, you just don't see them because there are really 0 air threats  faced by the U.S Military  Dont take my word on it, ask the people who train and fly the helicopters https://www.bellflight.com/support/training/united-states-academy they may answer your calls. The AH-1W also carries stingers

 

Edited by sartt
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 01/11/2019 at 15:16, sartt said:

@RanchSauce39 @PaganMin_ @CaptainBallistic  I don't know what you all are arguing about,

 

 

we dont need to argue its already been settled, at least until you decided to come around and beat a dead horse.

 

 

Quote

but both the AH-1Z and Apache could carry four stingers. I saw this with my own eyes near Yuma Air Force Station. They have the Ability to Carry the Missiles on the hard points just like they carry hellfires, you just don't see them because there are really 0 air threats  faced by the U.S Military 

 

 

 

 

 

  LMP6GsK.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No that is just incorrect. Trying to revive debunked theories again?

 

Besides unlike AH64D manuals Ah1W and AH1Z manuals still directly reference Aim9L/M as valid loadout options despite any lack of current A2A threats, and and real world need to currently arm them, but still list them i nthe manual whereas the Ah64 does not. SO that currently goes agaisnt your reasoning why Ah64D doesn't use them.

 

The very logical conclusion based on earlier disseminated primary source information  is  that the Ah64D is us army service are not capable of employing stingers or AIm9's, even if they could be modified to do so, whereas in the Ah1W and Ah1Z this is a standard integrated weapons system, and authorized for use.

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

Dont take my word on it, ask the people who train and fly the helicopters https://www.bellflight.com/support/training/united-states-academy they may answer your calls. The AH-1W also carries stingers

 

 

 

Oh you mean how other users have already disproven  that claim? the very  war thunder thread you linked?

 

Edited by RanchSauce39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Senior Suggestion Moderator

Suggestion passed to the developers for consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Senior Suggestion Moderator

As the AH-64D Apache has been implemented with update 1.97 Viking Fury,

 

Moved to Implemented Suggestions.:salute:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...