Avimimus

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.

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!

The thing that makes me nervous when flying nape-of-the-earth and at speed is the possibility of overrunning an enemy position and having anti-aircraft fire suddenly come from the rear hemisphere (where I can't see it). Flying higher is tempting because it increases the likelihood of identifying enemy positions while still relatively far away. That said, if I fly even lower... between the trees... it probably isn't as much of a problem? P.S. Anyone remember Gunship! (flight sim based on a tank simulator engine). The thing I recall from that was that hovering in the same place for two long could allow an armoured car to close a kilometre under tree cover and ambush you... the vehicles were active and responsive in that way. It was also interesting as I ended up always using the gunner position because spotting threats was more important than flying (and the pilot AI was actually pretty good at diving down into cover while popping countermeasures if I gave the order). Intense.

I know those were offered as possible export integrations (along with the R-73). I doubt it happened though. I remember I did once mod in the S-24 for the Ka-50 (it was alright I suppose - but that was years ago). At least with the Igla hardpoints those were offered for the Ka-50-2 and integrated into the Ka-52... so we have an idea of how the wings would work/look with them. The Ugroza (S-8Kor & S-13Kor) might be more plausible (guided rockets, like the APKWS). However, there is limited evidence of them entering production over the last twenty years (which makes it a bit harder to sell).

Moment of truth coming. We'll see if they let us load less than six Vikhr per hardpoint (similar to the Apache) We'll also see if they've improved the Shkval (honestly, I'd be happy about it losing lock or wandering sometimes - but only if it was realistic and due to contrast limitations - rather than a bug). IMHO, perfectly locking a vehicle through trees is also a bit flawed. Anyway, we'll see if there are any improvements to the squall!

Reply from discord "Rockets no. TOR never operated rockets. BL755 and Mk-20 as other cluster munitions planned." They also confirmed HARM. P.S. I believe 'other' refers to 'other than MW-1', so we might get that too).

So no rocket pods or cluster munitions (other than the MW-1)?

My dream EF-2000 expansion was the Panavia Tornado and the Mig 1.42... so yeah, decades... I did later track down a copy of Digital Integration sim from 1993 on floppy disk but I couldn't get it to run reliably!

So what weapon systems were used by the IDS circa 1989?

If I recall correctly (and I'm likely not recalling correctly): SFM = Standard flight model (used by some AI and used for flyable aircraft in LOMAC). AFM = Advanced flight model (used by the Su-25/Su-25T in the original Flaming Cliffs). PFM = Professional flight model (used by the A-10C after its flight model was upgraded during development, other newer releases) EFM = External flight model (used by a third party via an API - highly variable in quality but often approaching the PFM range). Many of these flight models had iterations over time - so I'm not sure the exact calculations, types of aerodynamic effects modelled etc.

My question is - with these older aircraft that are more reliant upon rockets as major direct fire weapons - will the rocket warhead fragmentation/blast effects get looked into? The Mi-24, Mi-8, Su-25, A-1H, IA-58 (not yet announced), Mig-23... a lot of these aircraft did their ground attack with unguided rockets or bombs primarily... I do understand that the modern American jets are profitable enough to justify detailed modelling of their guided weapons and targeting pods - but I can't help feel that all of these aircraft would benefit from some core improvements to rockets - and that the A-1H is definitely one of those that'll need it. Apparently three separate parties working on the Su-22... maybe four even. That said, two seem to be far enough along that they've clearly invested a lot. It'd definitely be nice if the projects were integrated somehow (e.g. a bit of art). I do really want a Su-17 or Su-22 though - so I just hope that one of them completes it. It is interesting how this aircraft (Su-17) seemed completely neglected (to the extent that I didn't expect to see it in less than a decade) and then ended up with duplicated effort.

Back to the original question. Some Soviet anti-ship missiles had a secondary mode for use against ground targets. Furthermore, some Russian anti-radiation missiles had secondary anti-awacs modes/modifications. So I am actually wondering if Soviet doctrine tended to conceive of the possibility of 'any weapon against any target' in an emergency? I'm actually wondering if they might've considered air-to-surface use during development/deployment... as it seems plausible now. P.S. Recently we've even seen long-range SAMs modified as surface-to-surface weapons. Although this seems to be more improvised, like the use of AIM-4 against ground-targets in Vietnam.

I'm more curious - any chance of talking you into adding the CRV-7 rockets (like in EF-2000)? There were originally plans for them... perhaps if the cold war hadn't ended more unguided weapons would have been integrated. The official payware module likely won't have rockets, brimstone or alarm - so you are our best hope for these

Priorities I can get behind Ah, I would have bet a negative amount, something like minus fifty dollars!

Maybe Yak-38?

Hmm... so UH-60 should be replacing one of these predictions? I doubt that they'd start two helicopters with the AH-64 still in early access... but maybe the UH-60 is third party? Honestly, it is pretty unpredictable as a lot depends on which third parties have received licenses. Is the G.91 announced officially yet? If not, it'd be a good candidate.