Avimimus

S! I'm curious what helicopters the various CIS states actually use for SAR and CSAR. The Mi-24 would indeed be a good candidate, but the Mi-8 has its virtues? By the way, I'm still trying to complete a list of uses for the Mi-24 cargo bay (in case anyone has additions): 1) Empty 2) Various cargoes 3) A team of observers 4) A team of soldiers 5) Stretchers and medical equipment 6) One door gunner with a single gun 7) One door gunner with two guns (so they can switch sides without moving the gun) 8 )Two door gunners with two guns (ie. each gun operated by a separate crew member) 9) Empty with the armour plates removed in order to save weight (common in Afghanistan) 10) Extra ammunition for self reloading near the battlefield (again a practice from Afghanistan) 11) Additional fuel tanks to increase range P.S. I'm not trying to put any pressure or start a lobby regarding "DCS:Hindsight". Although, of course, I will admit that I would like to see door gunners, deployment of soldiers etc. I just find the multi-purpose aspect of this helicopter fascinating and I think it has too often been dismissed for not being an Apache...

Yes. As well as offloading the rotor in high speed flight (and thus helping the helicopter push higher speeds than its western competitors and increasing its range) it has other effects as well: 1. The anhedral (downward angling) of the wings means that the helicopter requires very little input to the pilot in order for it to enter broad sweeping turns. Once the helicopter is up to speed one just needs to apply a slight bank and the helicopter automatically pulls itself into the turn. 2. The downside of the large stub wings is that they produce a "shadow" by blocking some of the rotor wash. This means that, on top of the loss of lift from the stub wings at low speed, once the Mi-24 slows below 20-30kph it actually loses 10-15% of lift it would have if it had no stub wings. This means that a rolling take-off is advisable if the helicopter is heavily loaded. S!

Whatever it is, I like it! Hear, hear! This is the logical direction: The same could go for adding a few fishing boats, motor boats, Zodiaks, motor/bomb/suicide boats. The same would go for merchants with Manpads etc.

Yes, this is why it is a good idea to fire a salvo. By launching several rockets the likelihood that a rocket will hit the desired target increases and the effective range of the pod is increased from a few hundred metres to a couple of kilometres. In addition, the dispersion means that your aim doesn't have to be absolutely perfect. If you ever watch videos of live firings by Hinds you'll see them fire a salvo at near maximum range, watch for effect, then adjust aim and fire a second salvo (if the first barrage didn't have the desired effect). Unguided rockets are really a form of light weight artillery. My question: According to the video it is possible to fire off a salvo of twelve armed unguided Vikhrs? Er... is this... well... what does it look like?

Moskva Class (of course)... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/DoD-Leningrad-DN-SN-90-07612_50pct.jpg Maybe an An-72P... http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Antonov-An-72P/1369891/L/&tbl=photo_info&photo_nr=6&sok=WHERE__(airline_%3D_%27Russia_-_Air_Force%27)_&sort=_order_by_photo_id_DESC_&prev_id=1370114&next_id=1369890 It would also be neat to see a Ka-29... http://www.aviastar.org/foto/ka-29.jpg That said I'd personally take an OH-58A (or other light utility copter) or a normal An-70 (or other transport aircraft) in preference.

What about S-8OM? ;)

There is actually a Ukrainian produced variant that can use the Vikhr. The actual Mil (Moscow Helicopter Plant) produced upgrades use the Ataka/Shturm complex. This generally believed to be due to the fact that Mil doesn't want to support the competing system (Mil backed the 9M120 for the Mi-28, while Kamov backed the 9A1472). The 9M114 Shturm and 9M120 Ataka are radio command guided SACLOS so, assuming that they can't be jammed, they can theoretically be fired in any conditions where you can sight the target. The 9A1472 requires adequate weather conditions for the laser's functioning. The downside of the radio command guidance is that you lose accuracy at range (has distance increases each degree encompasses a greater area and any error in the visual targeting system also encompasses a greater area). The earlier Hinds (ie. the ones in service) used a simple floating sight for the pilot and analogue displays. There is a paper map with a mechanical set of moving cross hairs to track position. I'm not sure about the gunner but I'd assume fairly primitive iron sights. I heard somewhere that the LLTV system is fixed forward looking (not sure if this is correct) and there is some kind of FLIR. Arneh has done considerable research and should be able to tell us more. Basically, a very primitive and very effective helicopter. It is also surprisingly small compared to the Apache.

Accelerated how? I have a small mod that adds weapons here: http://web.ncf.ca/ee555/

If I says its night capable then its night capable. All allied units should just give me a 3500m clearance and I'll eject instead of trying to land. This should be perfect for those bombing runs that I plant to do flying backward (so as to use the tail as a shield from small arms fire). Is there anyway to use the radio navigation system for blind bombing? (<- I'm serious) P.S. Is the S-8OM used operationally? It would seem to be worth modelling in this sim...

I hope this information helps: 1) ED basically needs to know how to build the aircraft, and use it in combat, in order to meet their standards (thus it has to be almost totally declassified) 2) ED needs to meet a certain standard as they are trying to use their civilian line as demonstrators in order to bid on contracts for military trainers (so they can't lose one iota of quality) 3) ED doesn't rule out modelling anything further down the line - but it does cost a lot of time and money so it will be years before many aircraft that are already in progress see the light of day. 4) Yes it would be very cool. I especially agree with the idea of modelling roles which aren't usually modelled (strike aircraft, transport helos etc.) P.S. I am not affiliated with ED and this information isn't official

Hear, hear! You have it: The modding community has always been primarily interested in improving, sharing, building - this is what makes it work. People don't inherently require a profit motive, it is something we learn either through indoctrination or tough luck. The prospect of financial certainly helps (especially if the job isn't enjoyable) but it isn't necessary. People like contributing, like doing a good job, like giving to others - we're programmed this way. I actually suspect that people at both ED and Maddox Games take pleasure in the craftsmanship and quality of their work. This doesn't mean that they aren't also in it for money, but if they were only in it for money, I would expect something more like Acecombat.

Escorting those transports... ...or hitting them and watching a Humvee in freefall.

You realise that the success of this film is largely what lead to DCS:Black Shark?

A very charitable policy, if you ask me. I'm actually glad that ED will be able to maintain some influence on the 3rd party and turn a small profit (which can then be reinvested and/or pay the team's mortgages...)

Of course, there is an upside to a spiral flight path: If you launch two missiles they are likely to hit very different spots. There is a high probability of hitting engine ports, weak spots, optics or the side/top with at least one of the missiles... M1s have very poor rear armour and relatively weak side armour - so they should still be fairly vulnerable.

According to a TBS video the Ka-50 should be able to land on a frigate.

Wait... lets figure this out. There is an ability to make cockpits. There is an ability to make an external FM and plug it into DCS (one hell of a lot of work I should think). My question is: What about the ability to make changes to data filed (eg. weapon performance, damage models etc.)? If this is all true, I wouldn't expect DCS quality - but I'm sure being able to tweak a couple transport aircraft so that they are flyable would be a wonderful thing...

It would be nice if there is eventually a counter part to the A-10 for East (Mig-27, Su-25 etc.) but I'm happy. If the Mi-24 cargo compartment is modelled we might get transport missions without a dedicated transport aircraft...

It also shows an inert R-73 mounted on a flying Ka-50...

Bombs are useful for low intensity warfare and demolition purposes. There are reports that Mi-24s in Afghanistan carried up to ten 100kg bombs (presumably four on each of the inner pylon and one on each of the outer pylons). The Ka-50 is also reportedly cleared to carry the KGMU (I read somewhere that you can fire each chamber separately - but I haven't been able to track down the source).

Three reasons: 1) Its more realistic 2) You can try to survive multiple missions instead of repeatedly dying on the same mission until you memorise it perfectly (cheating) 3) You can employ your weapons in relative peace and take a bit of time to actually enjoy it I personally could never play OFP, as the default campaigns and 99% of missions required exploiting flaws in the game and playing like some kind of slightly more realistic rambo. Technically, the gun equipped variants of the "Hip" (mi-8 ) ;) could theoretically engage five targets simultaneously. This should be fairly effective at suppressing manpads. At least in theory one could combine fixed forward firing PKs or gunpods, a flexible bow machinegun, a door gunner and two window port gunners). Is this correct?

Or stupidity :D

I always figured the effects of such helicopters would be light attrition and demoralisation (eg. akin to sniper teams) or completing destruction (ie. mopping up after fixed wing SEAD and CAS strikes). I can't really imagine attack helicopters having the battlefield endurance to bog down troops even with a FARP on the battlefield, they just have too much fire-power and too little armour. Of course, at a larger scale, a series of strikes could block up roads with tank hulks etc. You underestimate me, sir.

It isn't as much of an issue with the Ka-50. The Vikhr is one of the cheaper missiles out there (~20% of the price of a Hellfire?). Compared to what the cost of fuel will soon be... But what about collateral damage? Since the early days of Flanker 2 I recall that civilian/scenery buildings would be listed as destroyed in the debriefing. It would be nice to have an option whereby mission builders could set "mission failed" or "subtract points" for the destruction of civilian infrastructure. It would certainly add a different pressure to tactical decisions. Of course, if the building was set as a target in the first place it would be considered as a military target. What do you think?

'ecause it is...(seriously, its not just the looks)