Avimimus

Given that the Mirage F1, Mig-23, F-4, and A-7 have been announced the following are the most numerous missing British, French, American, and Russian combat aircraft... In thousands produced... Western Fighters: 5.2 F-4 / 1.37 for F-4E (under development, Heatblur) 4.0 Meteors / 1.55 Meteor F.8 3.25 Vampires 2.5 F-104 (under development, Aerges) 2.3 F-100 (under development, Grinnelli Designs) 2.0 Hunters 1.98 F9F Cougars 1.38 F9F Panthers 1.7 F-80 1.4 Mirage III 1.4 Venoms 1.05 F-89 1.22 F-8 (under development, Magnitude 3 LLC) 1.00 F-102 0.89 F2H 0.80 F-101 0.57 M.D.450 Ouragan 0.57 Eurofighter Typhoon (under development, Heatblur) 0.54 Sea Hawk 0.51 F3H 0.45 Gnat 0.43 Javelin 0.42 F4D 0.41 M.D.452 Mystere IV 0.34 F-106 0.33 EE Lightning (possibly planned, RAZBAM) 0.20 F-11F 0.19 Tornado ADV 0.18 Super Mystere B2 0.15 Sea Vixen Western Attackers: 7.5 F-84 3.4 F-84F 3.2 A-1 (under development, Crosstail Studios) 3.0 A-4 2.0 B-47 1.54 A-7 (under development, FlyingIron Simulations) 0.95 Canberra (possibly planned as AI, RAZBAM) 0.83 F-105 0.77 G.91 (under development, India Foxtrot Echo) 0.75 Tornado IDS (under development, AviaStorm) 0.7 A-6 (under development, Heatblur) 0.58 A-37 Dragonfly 0.58 Mirage 5 (possibly planned AI) 0.56 F-111 0.58 A-37 0.54 Jaguar 0.4 B-57B 0.36 OV-10 0.21 Buccaneer 0.20 AMX Warsaw pact: 10.0 Mig-17 (under development, Red Star Simulations) 5.0 Mig-23 (under development, RAZBAM) 2.9 Su-17 (under development, no license yet) 2.0 Il-28 1.8 Su-7B 1.7 Yak-28 1.5 Su-15 1.5 Tu-16 1.2 Mig-25 (Exists as AI) 1.16 Su-9 1.07 Mig-27 (Exists as AI) 0.59 Mig-9 0.42 TS-11 Iskra (under development, not license yet). [...] 0.23 Yak-38 0.23 La-15 0.15 Yak-130 China: 0.55 J-10 0.41 J-8 (under development, Deka Ironworks Simulations) 0.27 JH-7 Independent: 0.65 Draken (planned AI, Heatblur) 0.61 Tunnan 0.45 Saab 32 Lansen 0.27 Gripen 0.2 Kfir (under development, Aviron) 0.19 Saab 105 0.064 J21-R Helicopters: 5.5 Mi-2 4.7 OH-6 4.0 UH-60 4.0 Mi-4 2.46 H-34/Wessex 2.2 OH-58 (under development, Polychop Studios) 2.0 Alouette III 1.5 H-19 1.5 Bo-105 (under development, MilTech-5) 1.3 Alouette II 1.3 SH-3 1.3 AH-1 twincobra/supercobra 1.2 CH-47 (under development, ED) 1.1 AH-1 single engined versions 0.93 Mi-6 0.45 Lynx 0.4 V-22 0.2 EC655 / Eurocopter Tiger 0.2 Ka-52 0.19 Z-19 0.18 Z-10 0.13 Mi-28 Note: Helicopters with no armed variants were left out (e.g. 4.6 Bell 47, 2.6 Mi-1) Note: For a couple of these - most notably the Meteor - the differences between airframes are so extensive they should really be counted as consisting of multiple types. Also, quite interestingly, most of the missing aircraft after this initial list would be Korean War era US Navy aircraft. Note: Aircraft listed run from approximately 1948-1988 (excepting helicopters). WWII aircraft aren't listed, nor are aircraft which are too modern to model successfully. It is also important to note that some aircraft listed are too classified to model (most long ranged bombers fall into this category).

They actually lengthened the barrel for the helicopter (i.e. it is longer than on the Su-25A)! Mi-24P: 126 kg gun 940 m/s 300-2600 RPM 2.4 metre long barrel Round 390g, 0-48.5g explosive charge AH-64: 59.5 kg 805 m/s 625 PRM ~1.06 metre length Round 339g, 21.5g explosive charge So compared to the AH-64, the Mi-24P has: 1.34 times the kinetic energy? 2.25 times the high explosive charge? Compared to the Mi-24P, the A-10 has: 1.09 times the kinetic energy (not including the velocity of the aircraft) 1.2 times the explosive charge GAU-8 281kg 1,010 m/s 3900 rpm 2.3 meters barrel length 395g, 58g explosive charge

Interestingly, the only air-combat between the AH-1 and the Mi-24 reportedly involved opportunistic surprise attacks using anti-tank missiles... the defender didn't even get a chance to respond.

Still going on about this? The Ka-50 was a prototype/pre-production aircraft. It never fully matured as a platform and we don't know exactly what a mass produced variant would have looked like (A Ka-50N with Ka-52 like systems?) It was promoted and even offered to potential customers with a wide variety of weapons - including ones it wasn't wired yet to carry. So, yes - I think we can agree that the actual existing pre-production aircraft never carried a lot of systems - or at least no evidence has emerged that they were tested with them. However, we can also agree that Kamov was ready to integrate a variety of systems if customers were interested... ...and ED is giving us both the current (prototypical) Ka-50... and a 'late' version which has Ka-52 wings and some of the systems that were offered by Kamov. I don't see what people are on about.

The actual reason for this thread was that we were cued onto the Russian language forum discussions which were talking about how the Mi-24 couldn't carry both troops and its weapon load effectively as it would have to shed a lot of its fuel to make up for the extra weight. This reminded me about how the payloads of the AH-1 and the OH-58 begin to converge near the AH-1's maximum range (it simply can't carry a full fuel load and rocket load as well). The early AH-1G to AH-1J were carrying SACLOS guided anti-tank missiles as well, which makes them much more comparable in effectiveness (compared to the later Hellfire equipped versions).

Well, there is the time frame which puts the first twin engined AH-1 as much more contemporary: First Flight: 1965 AH-1 (4 years before Mi-24) 1969 AH-1J 1969 Mi-24 1975 AH-64 (6 years after Mi-24) Service introduction: 1967 AH-1 (9 years before Mi-24) 1971 AH-1J 1976 Mi-24D 1987 AH-64 (11 years after Mi-24) However, I think the bigger reason is that the AH-1 and Mi-24 represent first generation attack helicopters developed directly out of transport helicopters (UH-1 & Mi-8 ). The AH-64 is a dedicated second-generation anti-tank helicopter which was designed from the ground up with that in mind. The Mi-28 is a better comparison point to the AH-64, as it was also designed from scratch as a second generation attack helicopter (and which first flew about five years before the service introduction of the AH-64... albeit with an even more delayed service entry due to the fall of the Soviet Union).

I figured this might be fun as it is a comparison to a design which was more contemporary to it and also developed from a family of transport helicopters (instead of more recent attack helicopter designs). Thoughts? Payload at range?

It might actually be more interesting, if they do make another variant, to make a D... Useful for earlier time periods and using a 9M17 missile (or the front gun even) to ambush chaparrals or early model AH-1 helicopters could be dramatic.

Isn't that just the Ataka-VM? So far as I can tell it can only be used on the Mi-35.

Supposedly it is supposed to sink a bit in a hover due to the wings reducing rotor efficiency... however as it picks up speed this changes, and at high speed it is supposed to feel a bit like a fixed-wing aircraft with the wings taking a lot of the load and it even nosing into the turns a bit in a natural feeling way due to the wing anhedral.

It should be able to... we've only seen tubes on the outermost dedicated hardpoints - but the middle hardpoints are known to carry them. Also - something which surprised me - we are apparently getting the ATAKA as well, as the 9M120 can also be used! I'd always assumed these were separate generations of missile with different guidance systems (and certainly some 9M120 projects had more advanced guidance) but it seems they are compatible! So we'll hopefully be getting two types of anti-tank missiles and we might even get a couple of warhead variations with in that.

I believe you. However, didn't the 'aerial BMP' concept survive experience in Afghanistan - the Mi-36, Mi-40, Mi-42 concepts? The last two would seem to post-date the Afghan war. I'm also curious as to why the cargo bay was retained when the Mi-35 was redeveloped. They could have removed it.

Thanks! That makes sense. It is a case of strategic thinking (i.e. having a larger air transport capability, and having that force be self-defending) outstripping tactical thinking (i.e. the need to have combat elements and transport elements fight independently) and the available technology of the time (i.e. the actual ability of the helicopter to combine cargo, armour, weapons, and range). It is kindof a neat idea strategically even though it didn't work out practically. I do suspect that there might've been the occasional use in a major war: Emergency mass airlift in an emergency (e.g. evacuating airborne troops who are within range), supplementing the Mi-8 fleet once it had faced attrition, maybe carrying infantry over the front at the risk of higher casualties to that infantry (i.e. an echo of the old 'tank-rider' breakthrough doctrines)? Thankfully none of these situations occurred.

Given how important unguided rockets are to the Mi-24's firepower... I was thinking about the modelling of rocket warheads... and areas of effect. How accurately is the OFP modelled? It occurs to me that some aircraft can release approximately 160 rockets at once (in theory) and modelling the fragments could require a lot of computing power. But what if more detailed modelling was applied to short bursts of 5-10 rockets... and any rockets after that had a simpler modelling of warhead effects? Is such a compromise duable or desirable?

Would I be correct to say that the original doctrine considered the possibility of the Mi-24 being used to move troops or cargo in an emergency where extra capacity was needed (e.g. at some points in a war with another major power)? Of course, in the reality of lower 'intensity' conflicts the Mi-8 fleet provided more than enough capacity. There was little point in the Mi-24 having a cargo bay in practice.

Unless the AI (or other player) is good at sharing info.

I'm kindof surprised at the number of people who seem to be totally undervaluing situational awareness and the "Mk.1 Eyeball". Seriously, having crew (human or AI) who can spot potential threats or targets will make flying much much easier. The ability to spot a threat visually is the first step in evading it. It is like an RWR or MWS! For these older aircraft it is critically important, but there are also a number of cases where pilots used their eyes to spot SAM launches while flying more modern aircraft. Having a crew member who is dedicated to spotting threats and deploy countermeasures is a tremendously important and useful role! Hopefully the code they are making for realistic spotting of vehicles will find its way back into the Mi-8 as well. P.S. I remember I used to fly the sim Gunship! from the gunner position constantly in order to provide this spotting role - which was important because it was based on a tank sim and vehicles could sneak up on you using trees as cover... closing the last 800 metres to get into range and ambush you if you had your back turned... the rainy forested German landscapes were... well, intense... I still remember vividly the thudding of the rotor blades as I panned back and forth scanning the terrain for intermittent contacts with vehicles...

With this wonderful information I can now find peace in my soul... I will lie dormant until release, and even if these planned features are cancelled - I will still be content.

Sorry - I get over-excited sometimes. :) Particularly as it is often hard to research these subjects for those of use who don't read Russian well. When someone knowledgeable shares information I risk 'eating it too quickly and getting a stomach ache'.

Very interesting. I can see preferring carrying a 250kg bomb over a 100kg bomb (if one was limited to two or four bombs). What about the 10x100kg bomb load reportedly used in Afghanistan? Do you know anything about that?

Thanks for the info! It is neat that they are considering the R-60 at all. This gives me hope that some of the other more common systems (e.g. FAB-100, S-24, S-5) will also be included. The possibility of the 9M120 being included is also an interesting surprise. Do you know if the 9M120F or 9M220O are operational? Are either of these warhead options plausible?

The R-60 appears to have been a special variant for protecting government buildings... so I'd assume that there would be pretty significant changes (which might remove the ability to carry other weapons) and it might be classified. So very unlikely. P.S. I do hope for the S-24... being part of an "eight ship" of Crocodiles firing thirty-two 240mm rockets at a mountain fortification prior to closing with cannons and 9M114 would be... well... spectacular.

Wow! That is impressive. I agree that threat call-outs... and also just IDing of various vehicles and targets would be extremely useful.

It would be very interesting... I'm kindof interested in trying a D with 9M17 missiles... but the changes required are likely not worth the effort. A Mi-24V with the 12.7mm gun would be quite interesting... especially if jamming is modelled (They often didn't carry the full ammunition load because it was too prone to jam). The ability to provide off-boresight suppression against MANPADs, infantry, and associated soft vehicles *would* still be useful though! It is also quite iconic.

Some thoughts: - Mi-24 in Afghanistan carried 10xFAB-100 bombs. I've always assumed this was four bombs on each of the inner wing hardpoints and one on the middle/outer hardpoint. However, I've never seen pictures. It would be interesting to have this armament as it was used quite a bit and would give us a helicopter with a bombload equivalent to some medium bombers at the start of WW2! - Mi-24 in Chechnya carried 4xS-24 240mm rockets. Having modded S-24 rocket for use on the Mi-8 I can say that the feeling of firing them is unique. - It would be very nice to have options for both the armament of export/early 'p' with S-5 and GUV pods and a late 'p' with S-8, S-13, and UPK pods. I've often wondered why the Mi-8 was never offered with the S-5 rocket. - Another interesting practice was the tendency to carry additional rockets in the passenger compartment so that the aircraft could land and self-reload (kind of a mobile 'farp'). This is probably doable with scrips but it would be nice to model the extra weight. - Rumour has it that we might get a Kord door-gun field modification, but it would also be nice to have one or two PK guns as an AI-controlled option... these would provide extra eyes for spotting enemies and could potentially suppress infantry. Alternatively, removing the armour from the crew compartment and leaving it empty would be a good option to have. I believe all of these options would be available for all Hind-P variants - but I could be wrong. I have no idea about other weapons - such as the 9M114F ...but it would be interesting to have that as an option for attacking bunkers. If anyone has info or corrections - I'd love to learn.