Avimimus

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 If the original timeline had taken place we would've seen rockets (and some other fun systems) that became outdated by the time the Eurofighter entered service in any numbers.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

Apparently The ability to use iron bombs, or even the gun, isn't cleared on a lot of production models (yet anyway). Hence my "What if the Soviet Union still existed in 1999?" question... "Is it fair to say that CRV-7 and BL-755 integration would've taken place as a stopgap?"

I still kindof think that it'd be nice to have an option for unguided weapons (based on the alternate history scenario where the Cold War doesn't end and the Typhoon enters large scale production around 2000)... I'd love to have a few CRV-7 like in the good old Eurofighter 2000 sim... Some will disagree though. It does seem plausible though - in a world where a Soviet Su-27 and a Ef-2000 enter combat, that some Ef-2000 might be equipped so they could use unguided weapons in an emergency... are there any late 1990s documents to support this?

Well that is quite the Christmas present! Just to know it is still something we can dare to dream about as a possibility! Thank you sir!

Try getting into space exploration... I always check the launch date, travel time, and analysis time for space exploration probes against my life expectancy. I think the big hope is that someone will do an FC level simulation (with realistic times for radar acquisition, realistic weapons and flight model)... but without the detailed systems modelling/switchology... then they might be able to make Russian aircraft from after 1980 and aircraft like the the Panavia Tornado... P.S. It is interesting that the Eurofighter is being added but the Tornado isn't... I wonder if this just has to do with them being managed by different consortiums? Or is it because the Eurofighter isn't currently used for ground attack and countries are more sensitive about their strike aircraft and bombers (e.g. Tu-22M can't be modelled).

The Su-34 is still in production (and still in service). It is the major tactical strike aircraft of Russia... there is no way that it could be modelled without a major reversal in policy by Russia regarding how sensitive technology is handled. It makes for a good camera shot - so that is probably it. P.S. Maybe MAC will be sufficiently lower fidelity that they'll be able to add some newer models... so there is a slight hope there - but then that mean that it wouldn't have detailed systems... and it sounds like they'll also be aiming for something much less realistic than Flaming Cliffs 3...

Now that we have confirmation that no one will be allowed to build it (at least, unless the armed forces of Italy or Germany intervene or some other incredibly unlikely scenario)... I thought it would be good to focus our mourning in one place. Celebrate the plane... and get over not getting it.