Avimimus

Yes. Definitely. I probably got the decimal in the wrong place, then sorted the list without looking at why I was sorting. Do feel free to suggest corrections. This list was made quickly for my own use, then I decided to share it (in case people were curious about what the biggest gaps are). It wasn't intended to be flawless. There are undoubtedly more mistakes to be caught. The issue around variants is quite tricky, and probably unsolvable. Assessing when changes were large enough to constitute an aircraft which can't be substituted for by another similar variant is quite complicated, and very dependent on doctrine (e.g. for some purposes an improved bomb-sight makes a major difference, for other purposes a new engine may have a marginal effect). So, it is always unclear what should be 'lumped' and what should be 'split' (with subvariants listed separately). I checked through these. I've updated the Mi-6, but the others were pretty close (with rounding being the major source of error). I've tried to keep it to two significant digits where possible.

The first photo in the thread actually shows one. But here is the door gun position on the other side: And the weapon system with additional forward firing guns: I believe the four fixed forward firing machine guns precluded the carrying of rockets or missiles. However, the fixed forward firing cannon (and at least one door gun) can be carried with rockets and missiles. Some info from: http://www.samolotypolskie.pl/samoloty/2284/126/PZL-Mi-22: Mil Mi-2US (peaked at 30 examples) - Four fixed forward firing machineguns saw limited use prior to upgrading - but export to Burma in the 1990s. Typically upgraded to Mi-2URN (peaked at 28 examples, delivered from 1972) with 32 57mm rockets. Mil Mi-2URP (peaked at 44 examples, delivered from 1975)- Eight anti-tank missiles, four ready to fire (five minute self-reload time). Upgraded to Mi-2 URP-G - URP with mixed armament of rockets and Strela air-to-air missiles. Apparently most of these variants could be fitted with the 23mm cannon and the door guns (which are staggered).

I think it would be neat if Polychop kept specialising in light helicopters. They will have an American one and a Western European one, but we will still be missing an Eastern European counterpart. The only real opportunity to do this is the PZL Mil Mi-2. Why the Mil Mi-2 is a worthwhile addition: 1) It is the closest Soviet equivalent to the light NATO helicopters (e.g. OH-58, Sa-342, Bo-105). Although it is slower at 210 km/h, with a lower disk loading, its payload and role put it in the lighter utility helicopter category (good for spotting, medivac gameplay etc.) 2) It is the next most produced Soviet helicopter at ~5500 examples (after the Mi-8 with ~17,000 built and the Mi-24 with ~2650). 3) It pioneered the twin turbine roof arrangement of the Mi-8 and Mi-24 (and other later Soviet helicopters). It is also cute. 4) The Polish variants (particularly the Mil Mi-2URP) have a remarkable armament including: Fixed forward firing 23mm cannon Flexibly mounted door guns Air-to-Air missiles (Strela) Rockets (up to 32 rockets) MCLOS anti-tank missiles (4xMalyutka-M ready to fire, four reloads in the cargo compartment). Furthermore these weapons could be carried asymmetrically in the URP version - allowing up to three types of weapons to be carried at once (giving it a more varied armament than the Western light helicopters we are likely to get).

I agree (and the F/A-18A could include a CF-188, so easy sell to me). The 1970s should be pretty great (lots of analogue dials, a bit less switchology, unreliable missiles...) I'm really looking forward to the Mig-23, Su-17, F-8, Kfir etc.

@Silver_Dragon @MAXsenna - Done. I almost put 'on develop' out of tradition in tribute to Silver Dragon. But I decided to keep it simpler. Anyway, I tried to incorporate your advice and add the developers. The gaps are currently the C-130 and La-7 (as they didn't really fit with the existing categories). I should add those and the PC-9 eventually. Anyway, I made this list mainly for myself to see how many aircraft could be developed before getting around to the ones I want most (e.g. Su-17), and decided to share. I don't expect it to be perfect but I do appreciate feedback. Exactly! It is just a matter of time - if they keep developing the sim they'll have to develop a more complete planeset due to simply having built everything else already! Of course if they get into variants (e.g. F/A-18A) that could slow things down. There is also the issue of aircraft modules not really filling in vehicle or AI aircraft assets (Hopefully map developers will step in there). I do find it a bit strange to have the exact switchology of a particular production aircraft (often down to the year or the specific airframe) - but not have anything appropriate for it to fight...

I'm quite excited by this - a newer flightmodel and improved view! Plus more options for observation and weapons (and even utility/liaison unarmed use)!

So you are saying that I should change them from 'planned' to 'in active development' in this list? By planned I simply meant that they are in development for a future version, but not flyable in the current version.

Updated Mig-17 and added TS-11 Iskra

Unless they get a license to make it a paid module.

Angry tadpole. It looks like all four underwing hardpoints can be used (e.g. for a 12.7mm machine gun, a 100kg bomb, or Mars-4 with 8xS-5 57mm rockets). So that is a total of four 0.50 cal, four bombs, 32 rockets - or some combination. I'm not sure if any other options exist, but it definitely looks like light bombs and gunpods as well as rockets.

I think that makes it more impressive, honestly.

I would pay for a full-fidelity version of Echelon Wind Warriors. I doubt ED would allow it to be a paid module. Maybe a separate project leasing the same engine though?

In one of the interviews a dev stated that the Pucará was simpler from a systems perspective than the Tucano - so they thought it might come out first.

Looks like the external model is finishing up. Hopefully, the release of the F-15E goes smoothly enough that they can transfer some programmers to the Mig-23ML and the IA-58! Both have simpler systems, and a lot of the art done - we might see them sometime towards the end of 2024 or early 2025.

Ah! So the actual circuitry for the release interval is in the pylon itself and set by ground crew! It'd be interesting to see how this would be implemented in DCS (e.g. set as an option in the mission editor, or through the rearm menu)? It'd also be interesting to see if this functionality could be added to the Su-25 by ED at some point. Anyway, very interesting! Thank you for the breakdown. I am in your debt!

I'm sure we'd all prefer you to look after your overall life and wellbeing - and after that - I think we'd probably think that your time is better spent on the Su-22 than on answering my questions. But thank you! I've been wondering about some of these things for over fifteen years.

That might be feasible if we were all willing to pay a substantial amount for the upgrade. Personally, I'm fine with the OH-58D subsidising the development of the tech... that said, I'd probably be willing to pay something for a fixed flight model, more armament options, and a civilianised version (or at least the ability to delete the minigun and retain the forward view)

I've been waiting for that announcement for years! Cheers for hope!

I thought that might be the case! Ah! So a bit like the old KABB experiments? Was it always necessary to do that? Or could the bombs be released on a separate second pass (or be released first, with the rockets released on a second pass afterwards)? Also - with regard to the MBD racks - I've wondered for several years whether the release interval can be adjusted. Originally, when ED first modelled them it was a separate press to release each bomb. Now one press releases all of the bombs on the rack in a sequence. However, the interval is fixed (so the bombs tend to land very close together). The same goes for the KMGU cells... can the release interval be adjusted? Even if they can't be adjusted by the pilot in flight - I always thought it would make sense for these systems to be adjustable by ground crews at least (e.g. a high speed attack would use a rapid interval, whereas a lower speed attack one would want to use a slower interval to spread the bombs out a similar amount). Thanks again!

Thank you @SVKSniper! I've spent several months wondering and looked at a lot of photos trying to figure this out. It never occured to me to just ask you! I really appreciate the information. Can any of these weapons be carried while also carrying bombs? P.S. I wonder if the aircraft in these photos has been loaded incorrectly (as is often the case with aircraft loaded for display/photography)? SPPU-22 | Weaponsystems.net

I'm curious if it can carry rockets and bombs at the same time... if so it'll be a bit more flexible than the Tornado or the Viggen (albeit with the bombs consisting of a couple of FAB-100s... but if one aims well I suppose it'd still work)! I rather like the forward view - very good for an aircraft of its era. It might be the first trainer I get.

My argument would be that it this produces a different experience: Taking out one or two truck or an artillery position becomes an accomplishment in a way that it could never be if you were flying an A-10 or an AH-64... one feels ever gun round and every trigger press that much more... and conducting COIN against a small enemy force (e.g. a few technicals and a BRDM in a scouting troop) makes it that much more intense. Impacts are smaller but more meaningful. It is a bit like flying a Gazelle or an OH-58 in the COIN role (i.e. a fixed gun with limited ammunition and seven to eight rocket rounds)... one has to design the missions around the more limited firepower, but it can actually be a lot more satisfying.

Quick questions: What arrangements of rockets and gunpods were permitted? Photos suggest that the under-fuselage hardpoints could also carry SPPU-22 or Rocket pods (which differs from the DCS AI model). It'd be neat to be able to carry six rocket pods (i.e. 2/3rds the load of a Su-25 rather than 1/2 the load)... it'd also give it a bit of an edge on the Mig-23/Mig-27... so it would make it more attractive overall. It also seems that the rear facing SPPU-22 arrangement was used by Poland? Operationally! Which is interesting - I'd always thought of it as an experimental loadout. Were any presets used with this - or were the weapons just set at a fixed angle? Of course, I will pre-order it regardless!

Or alternatively - being able to remove the minigun from the minigun variant... Basically any opportunity to fly more in variants with an almost perfect forward view (e.g. no doors, no sighting tv/pedestal)! That is my big desire (other than a FM rework).

It depends. Some of the UH-1 (transport helicopter) gun mounts could be traversed and elevated for instance. In the AH-64 the rocket pods can be adjusted in elevation, but the missiles can't. In the Ka-50 the missiles can be adjusted in elevation but the rockets can't. In the Mi-24P both the gun and the rocket are fixed to fire forwards. A lot depends on doctrine. I think the weight savings and greater rigidity/accuracy of having a 20mm on the Gazelle be fixed would make that the preferred solution in this case.