Avimimus

Thanks!! I'm glad they are aware at least. Honestly, it'd improve my enjoyment of the module quite a bit (I tend to fly COIN and it is unreasonable to carry twelve anti-tank missiles, but one still desires to have a couple).

The Mi-8 forum had an Mi-24 thread for several years (in the main section, not the wishlist section... so putting this here is just an extension of the tradition. The Ka-29 would also be interesting (very interesting aircraft with interesting armament option), although I suspect it is too heavily classified (as it was produced in small numbers for special forces). The Mi-4 would also be interesting... although it doesn't fit the light helicopter role. So, yes, I generally would agree. Still, the sheer number of Mi-2 produced, and the relatively small size, recommend it in my mind. It'd be nice to have something roughly equivalent to the UH-1H, Sa-342, Oh-58D etc. This is as close as it gets (at least if no one produces a scout version of the Ka-226).

Any word on this?

I have seen some documents from when the F-15E was in development, and they claim that it could carry three GPU-5... Considering that it apparently doesn't use AGM-65 in service, but we're still getting those - where is my GPU-5? I mean... no rockets or guns? Just guided bombs? It needs more spice.

I'm kind-of expecting both before 2024... of course, it is dangerous to expect things like that - so I wouldn't advise anyone else to do it. But I'm willing to risk

Given the state of the artwork and the relative simplicity of the systems - I wouldn't be surprised if the IA-58 ends up being released in between the F-15E and the Mig-23ML

Give me a key and I'll tell you Seriously though - I doubt anything could compete with the unique flight characteristics of the Hind... the fact that it looks like a dragonfly and that one has to rely upon gunpods, rockets and SACLOS missiles... rather than Hellfires... gives it a nice primitive flare. I just wish that the rocket fragmentation model was updated... as the Mi-8 and Mi-24 really will not be that competitive until warheads are modelled in more detail. Honestly, I'm hoping that rocket warheads in general get revisited when the Apache gets the MPSM rocket warheads and the ability to carry partially loaded missile racks gets added to the Ka-50... if both of these features remain Apache only... well... it isn't really a contest if these other modules are being neglect, is it?

There is every indication from export marketing materials that the additional hardpoints were being offered on the Ka-50... so it is likely for a production version. The question I have is whether it will have a WCS closer to the Ka-52 - one which allows asymmetric loadouts - that way we could carry 6xVikhr and 20xS8 rockets opposite and two drop tanks (as we've seen Ka-52 do).

I thought I'd quote this post as well - which quantifies the benefits:

Thank you! That is very interesting. I do rather appreciate the ASP-17V... so I might end up hoping for an Mi-24V with MDB-4 racks, PKT door guns, and maybe the UPK-23-250... (as the 'Mi-24 II' product should they ever make it - and an Mi-2 URP-G for the MCLOS experience). I'll admit that the Mi-24D with its 9M17 missiles is pretty iconic though.

The Mil Mi-2URP-G would probably be the best bet for MCLOS then I take it? I suppose we could end up with the SACLOS version though - if they ever decide to do the Mi-24D (also, what of the Mi-24V - did they universally carry 9M114)?

It is a pretty good looking loadout: Note: I can drop four bombs (including two from the inner hardpoints) - but after that the WCS doesn't release any further bombs - so six of them stay on the racks. You can actually test this with the Mi-8 - there is an option for a PKT door gun (albeit one with slightly better ergonomics I suspect).

Yes, the MDB racks for the inner hardpoints (allowing each of the inner hardpoints to carry 4xFAB-100 instead of 1xFAB-100 100kg bombs).

Yes. Thanks! Although I'm still not 100% certain as maybe Petrovich will only spot threats if the shutters are open. Yes, Petrovich is very good - but he only look through the sight currently - when the shutter doors are closed (e.g. when 30mm cannon is armed or the sight is parked for maneuvers) he cannot see anything.

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).

Honestly, the more I fly the more I see some merit in having a gunner who can switch sides to suppress ATGM and MANPAD teams... even if they have reduced visibility and won't be effective against vehicles. I'd honestly be willing to pay for an 'export' Mi-24P II module which includes the PKT and the UPK pods (I'd pay even more if it had an Mi-24V of course). The MDB 4xFAB-100 racks used by a few units in Afghanistan would also be motivating (if they don't want to give us the UPK). The 10xFAB-100 loadout looks really good.

Hello, I noticed that Petrovich ceases to call out targets when the doors are shuttered (or the sight is parked). But, he has large cockpit windows and should be able to spot threats within a few kilometres using his eyes (the old "Mk1 Eyeball"). I can't help but to imagine Petrovich sitting in the front cockpit squeezing his eyes shut as soon as I switch to cannon (or order the sight to be parked prior to a sharp turn). Is this working as intended? Or will Petrovich someday keep doing his job as an observer - even when he can't look through the sight?

Each of the launch tubes is attached separately - so it is possible to carry four or two missiles per rack (or even one) Carrying only two missiles per rack saves 472kg (1040lb) of weight! This translates into greater agility and greater range. So it should be unsurprising that pilots not expecting many armoured targets - but still wanting a couple of anti-tank missiles in case they are needed - would fly with the racks largely empty. Operationally we've generally seen Ka-52 carrying two or four missiles per rack, and we've also seen several photos of the Ka-50 with only two missiles per rack. There are a few photos of them flying with full racks - but it is rare. The major exception is the Ka-52 which is often seen flying with a full rack - but carrying only one rack. This way it can carry a V-80 (S-8/80mm rocket pod) on the other side and two drop tanks (so 20xS-8 rockets and six 9K121 Vikhr and two drop tanks). However, the WCS on the Ka-50 (as modelled) doesn't permit asymmetric loadouts. So the most realistic modelling of the Kamov would let us carry partially empty racks and/or asymmetric loadouts (with missiles and rockets on opposite sides). We now have plenty of photographic evidence to back this up. P.S. The AH-64 Apache module by DCS models a similar capability - with options for one, two, three, or four hellfires per rack! Because American often fly with partially loaded racks too... it saves so much weight to do so.

I'd honestly be really happy if low contrast conditions caused the failure of Shkval locking/automatic tracking - thus requiring manual correction in some light conditions. I'm quite excited about the new gas ingestion feature - and I'd be extremely excited if the Shkval was less perfect (right now it can lock vehicles through trees, as well as in improbably lighting conditions)! Definitely a top priority feature in my mind, along with being able to carry less Vikhr per rack.

A really interesting doc! In particular, the sizeable effects of supersonic heating! It seems to make a real difference. I assume that time of day and atmospheric conditions would also matter? Unfortunately that information doesn't seem to be included. I suspect engagement ranges would be higher at night though.

That still frame definitely explains the decision to eject.

It'd be neat to get more variants (e.g. Mi-8 with SACLOS ATGMs or more UH-1 armament options - maybe even a modern ODS - e.g. CFDI Helicopter Weapon Systems (cfdintl.com)). Although I'd personally prefer an Mi-2URP. An export version of the Mi-24P (with UPK-23-250 pods, PKT door gunners etc.) would also be nice - or even an Mi-24V.

Honestly, I don't mind DCS having a few lower poly AI objects (admittedly some of the Flanker era models do need a rework)... but the focus on modelling a specific year of a specific country's subvariant of an aircraft - but not modelling the opponents it would face bothers me a little. It'd be nice if there was a focus on building out a comprehensive set of AI assets for specific theatres (time-periods/places) like Il-2 Great Battles does.

Any word on whether we'll have an option like on the AH-64 to only partially load missile racks? Footage of Ka-50/Ka-52 in both training and combat shows that they often carry two or four Vikhrs per rack... considering that the AH-64 allows something similar (and htat 12xVikhr is overkill for a lot of missions) it'd be a great feature to have. It'd be great to have confirmation on this. P.S. We also see six total, but all on one rack when loaded asymmetrically in the Ka-52 (and I'm curious if the weapon control system will allow this - given that we are getting the Ka-52's six hardpoint wing configuration as an option).

Hmm... pity those of us flying Mi-8 or Mi-24 where rockets are supposed to be the primary weapon You guys talk as if it is an option to not rely on rockets!