Avimimus

I think it is also worth noting that we are risking stereotyping the Mi-24 a bit. Yes, it couldn't deploy special forces at a useful distance and then support them as had originally been hoped (under the airborne IFV/BMP concept). It had to choose between range, weapon load, and cargo (the latter being something it wasn't very good at). I do think there are situations where the VDV might have used Mi-24 to help redeploy troops faster in an emergency. I can also see situations where one Mi-24 (largely stripped of weapons) might evacuate some troops while armed Mi-24 protected it. But it wasn't suited to these roles. However, if one looks at the Ah-1... near its maximum range its weapon load decreases (and becomes more equivalent to an Oh-58... which is surprisingly fuel efficient and long ranged). It is hard to get both payload and range out of a helicopter. So the Mi-24 never delivered on the original paper vision that the Generals wanted (but was beyond the technology of its time)... it doesn't mean that it can't lift things. Similarly, just because the Mi-24 has wings which give it a lot of excess lift at cruise but slightly decrease lift in a hover, doesn't mean it is unable to hover (as some people have claimed)... it just means it is very good at cruising. P.S. With regard to the earlier discussion - it is also worth remembering that rockets are quite a bit lighter than infantry.

With two crew and without the Shturm... the Mi-24 could carry reloads for all four UB32 pods and still carry 92% of its fuel at MTOW. That would drop to 80-85% with a third crew-member to reload, however only carrying reloads for two pods would easily allow excess power (and still increases the firepower on the sortie by one and a half times). Of course, the helicopter idling while reloading is burning fuel - so it'd be interesting to see how much fuel the Mi-24 goes through during fifteen minutes 'on the tarmac'. Also, as I mentioned earlier - parts of Afghanistan are 600m ASL, and Afghanistan can go below zero during the day in winter (and colder than minus 20 at night), so it also isn't all hot and high. There would be plenty of situations where an Mi-24 could carry a couple of pods worth of reloads and also have plenty of fuel and power to spare. So I don't think the argument against this should be 'hot and high' or that the Mi-24 can't lift enough. The more central argument is - how does one provide security for the helicopter? How much time is saved compared to flying back to the airfield? I suspect the truth may actually be something in between - that in Afghanistan some Mi-24 ferried reloads to forward rearming points at locations controlled by ground forces. This then allowed Mi-24 to land and reload in an emergency without having to fly back to the airfield. Basically self-deploying reloads to a forward re-arming point controlled by friendly forces.

Some of the newest versions are different - but the Cold War era ones (like we are getting) have a maximum of of eight Shturm/Ataka using all four outer pylons. Earlier variants (Mi-24D) could only carry pairs of 9M17 missiles on the outermost hard-points. If you want 12 to 16 anti-tank missiles you'll need to go with the AH-64 or Ka-50. Interestingly though, these attack helicopters often flew in practice with less than the maximum number of anti-tank missiles. I think the feature I most anticipated for Black Shark III was the possibility of only carrying four anti-tank missiles... I've often found twelve to excessive, so the options for four or eight missiles seemed like a nice way to reduce weight and improve performance. Unfortunately, work on that module is suspended for the moment.

Any source for that? Obviously in the highlands on a hot day the helicopter could be quite limited. But some parts of Afghanistan are as low as 600m ASL and can go sub-zero in January (and below minus 20 centigrade at night). This means that the helicopter could lift more than in many parts of the U.S. Note that, with two crew, no shturms, and 4xUB32 rocket pods with an additional 64 rockets in the cargo compartment the aircraft could carry its full internal fuel load and still be >150kg below its maximum take-off weight (which is actually enough room to put the shturms back on). I really don't see it as impossible that they created some impromptu forward air reloading points (possibly near allied troops for protection). It is certainly within the capabilities of the helicopter. P.S. Heck, if it can do it when fully loaded - it could probably also do so in higher/hotter conditions -dropping the shturm and 1/3rds fuel would but it a nice >650kg below MTOW...

I agree - even if the dials are in English it doesn't mean we have to go non-metric.

Ah - but this is the Kord mount... not the window mounted PK guns... and even then, they often would only carry one gunner (who would operate both guns).

For depicting export aircraft as well! Apparently the reason why the UPK-23-250 isn't planned isn't that the Mi-24P can't use them, but rather that they have only been used by other airforces.

Well, technically we are seeing it 'roaming the skies' in Q1 2020 - it is just that we're not in the pilot's seat! But there is video going around! You can see, but you cannot touch

Hey - so how long does it usually take for sale prices to approximate the pre-order price? My computer can't currently run it - I might well just pre-order it anyway to show support, but I'n wondering how soon I need to upgrade my computer in order to 'justify' getting it.

The twin fins of the demonstrator were more likely dropped for other (very good) reasons. The main thing which interests me about the earlier Eurofighter plans was the greater variety of 1990s armament (including unguided air-to-ground weapons) that never saw service because the Cold-War ended. If the original timeline had taken place we would've seen rockets (and some other fun systems) that became outdated by the time the Eurofighter entered service in any numbers. They'd be nice to have for a 'late Cold War' scenario based on the environment it was actually designed primarily for (i.e. 1990s Europe)... but iron bombs and rockets might be too much to wish for.

I think you'll find that terminology over time internationally has been much looser. There have been a bunch of 'flying wings' with tail-planes (i.e. it often meant 'lifting body') etc. etc.

At least I'm happy to hear that rockets are likely in any case. It is nice to have them as an option.

H-6 would be pretty neat (especially if an earlier Russian variant could be developed out of it for the European theatre). Su-30MKK would also be a pretty lovely. I like multi-role/ground-attack... even if it is FC3 level.

Well... wouldn't it be more like flying with a crew of two (200kg) and no Shturm.... so the tally is 1956kg with 1244kg left for fuel (about 2/3rds capacity)... so twice as much fuel as you estimated... much more feasible. If they are UB32 pods... then the rocket weight is more like 161kg per pod so the tally drops further to 1566kg, so 1634kg of fuel... As for the idea of a helicopter landing without any allied troops to protect it and then having crew dismount to self-reload... well... that is pretty 'gutsy'... I can't ever see it being a standard operating procedure (officially at least)... even if some pilots felt they could pick landing sites where they'd be relatively safe.

Thanks! They did make a comment about not bothering with 'exotic' loadouts that were only ever used in Afghanistan or Syria. (That said in my mind - those were major combat uses along with Chechnya... so aren't these loadouts actually more representative of service loadouts?) Also - didn't you say that it was the same MDB racks used on the Su-25? So technically... the components for the FAB-100 loadout are already modelled in the game Anyway, thanks again - your contributions are always interesting.

The R-60 is so light though... it makes it rather hard to replace entirely! I can see why some remained in use. I also understand the idea of always carrying at least a pair of Shturm per hardpoint... given that it is usually good to have at least four rounds available I can see why it doesn't matter as much. It would definitely be worth the added programming effort to provide options to carry two or four Vikhr per hardpoint on the Su-25T and Ka-50 though... one really doesn't need the weight and drag of 12-16 missiles in a lot of situations! So I hope they consider that. The interview also didn't discuss bombs... which I'm curious about (as we've discussed earlier - the 10xFAB-100 bomb-load from Afghanistan would be interesting - a helicopter with the bomb load of a WWII medium bomber).

There are photos that seem to show a Ka-52 with 24 Vikhr - I have my doubts though (excellent photoshop maybe??). It is definitely confirmed that some Ka-52 can carry missiles on the inner pylons as well... although that is most often used for the new heavier anti-tank missiles... so the total maximum missile load ends up being 16 missiles in that case. Particularly the Hermes-A. It is interesting that the Ka-52 has also been spotted with 9M123VM Khrizantema, 9K121 Vikhr and 9M120 Ataka... so that is at least four different anti-tank missiles systems.

Yeah... that was what I was thinking... that the Mi-24P was first discussed (with cockpit screenshots) much earlier... thought it was more like 2013 not 2008 though!

One thing I would be interested in is a ground unit (and maybe even some AI aircraft) set in the year 2000 if the Cold War had continued... so Objekt 195, 2S35, German 'Giraffe tank' SAM batteries, ADATs... It'd be really interesting and enough specs are known for a lot of these to exist as AI ground units.

Hmm... I'm not sure if that equation covers it. If one looks at the manuals there are also '50% kill' zones and 'unsafe zones' where there is a lower probability of being killed. The fact is that fragments spread out into an ever increasing volume of space and gaps begin to form between the fragments. There are usually a few large fragments that are lethal at a much larger distance but at those distances the probability of being missed entirely is higher. This is especially true if one is thinking about 'soft' vehicles with a low probability of unusually large or high-energy fragments hitting tired, cabs, radiators etc. 1) I would suggest adding a probability function for escaping without damage that decreases with range... (a simple probability function is less computationally intensive than ray-tracing fragments). 2) One could have the probability function be have different values depending on the type of warhead (e.g. expanding road warheads, modern fragmentation warheads which have much more even fragmentation, thermobaric warheads which are killing through over-pressure rather than fragments)... and also build in a capacity for having more than one effect (e.g. the Vikhr should be modelled as two warheads, the HEAT warhead itself and the fragmentation belt). P.S. It might also make sense to have a check to see if a large number of rockets have been fired and then switch off these calculations if the salvos exceed several dozen rockets. Well some of them are. The high velocity CRV-7 for example has a warhead variant that releases five tungsten flechettes per rocket with the intent of kinetic kills on light armoured vehicles. It really depends on the rocket variant we're discussing.

I do hope that we'll at least get options to load only 4 or 8 Vikhr missiles (as they already have art done for that, and it isn't exactly treading on a classified system to simply allow removing a few tubes from the existing hard-point). Beyond that - I really would be content if not getting our dreams fulfilled is the price paid to avoid risking prison time for the devs Best to keep them secure and happy. P.S. This also means that a later Mi-8 or Mi-28 is impossible. But I suppose the Mil Mi-2 is declassified? That'd be the next logical Soviet helicopter project. It has some interesting armed variants and would be fun to compare with the lighter OH-58 and Gazelle!

For me this is truly the most exciting aircraft being worked on (other than the Mi-24 Krokodil... with IA-58 Pucará as a runner up). I hope your model is well backed up... and I hope that ED decides to incorporate the 3d model and/or you find a team of programmers to turn it into a complete model. In any case, I'm greatly enjoying your work. It is nice to watch.

With regard to guided munitions (Mainly laser-guided bombs and AGM-65 Mavericks): "If key allies—notably Britain, France, and Germany—were committed to the operation, allied inventories might be adequate against attacks of up to six divisions. Against nine to twelve division assaults, however—or under circumstances in which the better-armed allies do not play major roles—the European arsenal is likely to prove inadequate. (In 1990, Iraq attacked Kuwait with 11 divisions.)" From Page 88: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1245/MR1245.ch4.pdf I believe the original report was published in 2000 (although it has been republished a few times). Note: In 1987 the Warsaw Pact was estimated to have 69 divisions in the European theatres (with another 10 divisions covering the northern sector with Finland).

Well... Europe was originally supposed to have 765 of them in service by ~2005-2010... producing enough guided munitions for all of them to use on all targets would add to the price. There is also the fact that we're currently spending 20-200 times the price of the target on each guided weapon... which works when you aren't dropping that many bombs, but fighting a serious war you'd want to find cheaper ways to destroy trucks... of course, in a series war with the Warsaw Pact that was envisioned the NATO air-forces probably would cease to functionally exist in Europe within the first five to ten days anyway.

The bombing of Kosovo and the invasion of Afghanistan unguided bombs were dropped in much greater numbers than guided bombs (with the exception of some countries, in Kosovo I believe the vast majority of bombs dropped by Canada were guided). Since then guided bombs have been more important than unguided weapons (and more important than missiles). So I'd suspect that unguided weapons would have been pretty standard up until the 1999-2001 period. Stocks of guided weapons would be limited and a capability to use unguided weapons would be quite desirable for conserving guided munitions. So, it seems quite plausible that a Eurofighter entering service around 2000 would view unguided weapons as fairly central to the arsenal? I suppose what I'm saying is that a lot changed from 2000 to 2008