Lucas_From_Hell

Could it have been a Kh-23?

Complementing that, you can press the RDO button on the PCA to tell the computer to stop creating ghost tracks for targets you manually unlock. When the lock is lost rather than dropped, the ghost track will appear all the same.

While they have similar origins, the final concept was quite different. The Mi-24 was built on top of the UH-1's shortcomings in terms of engine power, survivability and firepower, and it exceeds the single-engined AH-1 variants by quite a margin in these aspects. Strictly within the 1970s, it was no contest. while a few later Cobra variants in that decade already got the 20mm chin turret, it could only carry up one pair of large rocket pods and one small one on the outboard pylons. ATGM capability was up to eight TOW missiles with only two-thirds of the Shturm's range, and most pods that could be loaded were small calibre machine guns or grenade launchers. Compare that with four UB-32 pods and four Shturms, or eight Shturms and two large rocket pods, plus the option to carry a variety of bombs and heavier rockets like the S-24, all while having one of the best crew and system protections on a helicopter (still holding up today) and two very beefy engines to do the lifting. The AH-1J fixed the powerplant problem in 1979, but the attack capability only really caught up close to the late 1980s with the AH-1W with IR imaging sensors and Hellfires to replace the rather underwhelming TOW missiles.

A big part of it is that the Soviet aviation industry often had orders from the defence ministry to not reinvent the wheel - in other words, see what existing components satisfy your need before putting forth a request for new ones. In this case, there was a pitot tube with vanes that double as a visual aid, so why bother creating a new one?

Quoting from another thread:

Triangulation using the radar altimeter, same deal as the Su-25 without using the rangefinder, or the MiG-21 or the Mirage 2000 when the radar is off.

Some of the designers of the Mi-24 had worked on the Il-2 back in the day, and were well-acquainted with its features. The influence it had was mostly in a tactical sense though, helping them visualise how to create a machine that integrates seamlessly with the ground forces. AI according to original spec will be a gunner that provides target call-outs and handles Shturm/Ataka launches, and a pilot that can hold specific speeds, altitudes or atitudes. How much input is needed is yet to be seen. Bombs were used but generally speaking they preferred rockets. Still, the gunsight is able to run CCIP-style bombing attacks if you want. This link has a pilot cockpit diagram for the Mi-24V, which applies to the Mi-24P as well with minor exceptions.

The difference in time frames is almost insignificant, actually! The Mi-24V and Mi-24D both entered operational service in 1976. Meanwhile, the Mi-24P became operational in 1981 (i.e. 5 years later).

In the specific case of the Mi-24, the Stinger's appearance created a mild change in tactics but nothing revolutionary - the main thing was to fly fast at or below 10m AGL on the radalt, that way the enemy didn't have a firing window good enough. When not hugging the ground, preventive use of flares by the whole formation was often enough to deny Stinger shots, particularly if the IR jammer was installed.

The vast majority of DCS aircraft, particularly ED ones, are based on a specific production series. Lot 20 Hornet, Bushranger Huey, Block 50 CCIP F-16C, you get the idea. It's no surprise the same applies to the Mi-24. It won't ruin its tactical use in any meaningful way, particularly in online play where you have a V/UHF radio to ask for friendly fixed-wing aircraft or the upcoming Ka-50 with the new self-protection suite to clarify what's going on. The briefing usually provides enough threat information to extrapolate on your own, however.

That's part of the design requirement for the Ataka - unlike the exclusively SACLOS Shturm, or the exclusively beam-riding Vikhr, the Ataka can use both, meaning it can be used on all operational Russian attack helicopters.

We won't have that mount for sure, as the gunsight out front used to mount them is exclusively used for the machine gun on the Mi-24V. As you can see here, the Mi-24P front cockpit is a lot cleaner:

zhukov, the distinction of looking out the window or into a screen is absolutely irrelevant for the attack profiles described. At the altitudes the Mi-24 flies attack missions in (i.e. >200km/h at 5m, not hiding behind trees or hovering), the pilot only has enough attention span and reaction time for one thing - not crashing into the ground. The operator is the person responsible for looking outside (either regular visual scanning or with the aid of the magnified periscope sight) and communicating direction, range and any additional information about spotted targets. With this information at hand, the pilot can then choose the right time to pop up and transition to the terminal attack phase by looking in the direction indicated by the operator. If flying alone, the pilot has to either fly higher (which exposes them to fire on the way in) or only start scanning after the pop-up, which severely limits the acquisition time.

Complementing what zhukov said, a few operators have sought less spoofable alternatives to infrared guidance. Sweden's RBS 70 fires a laser beam rider missile, while the British Javelin and Starstreak work with SACLOS guidance (i.e. keep the sight on the target until impact).

You're correct, all weaponry is fixed forward-firing. The Mi-24 tactical employment is a little different from the Apache or Ka-50. While the latter make their money in a hover using missiles and camera-slaved cannon to do the job, the Mi-24's bread and butter is to come in very fast hugging the ground (we're talking 5-10m on the radalt), pull the collective to pop up, and let fly a couple of cannon or rocket salvos before breaking away and egressing at low altitude to set up the next run. EDIT:

That's because most single-seat fighter pilots are self-loving psychos mostly concerned with air-to-air and frontline strike duties. Nobody likes a guy in the back for a job that doesn't need one, but the guys flying single-seaters aren't the ones doing things where another pair of eyes and hands are needed.

I'm sure they don't either, but it's a calculation of 'project sales from additional development' - 'projected costs from additional development'.

I'll have to disagree. In all of history, we've only had exactly one operational single-seat attack helicopter, and combat experience with it led the designers to ditch the concept and move towards a traditional two-pilot arrangement. As for the fixed-wing aircraft, it's worth remembering that the F-15E is about a decade newer than both the F-16 and F/A-18, and that even aircraft introduced after 2000 have full mission capable twin-seat variants that are preferred for complex tasks. Aircraft like the Rafale B, F/A-18F, Su-30SM/MK, A-29B... Even the Gripen NG, still in development, is receiving a hefty cash injection into the project by Brazil in order to design a twin-seater JAS-39F specialised for complex mission sets where a single pilot would be overwhelmed.

Yes, the operator is in control of the machine gun in these. You can read more about it here (use Google Translate for the Russian parts), but in short form the machine gun was said to be largely useless by pilots and operators who flew on both the Mi-24P and Mi-24V, and they asked Belsimtek to model the Mi-24P instead as the 30mm gun was very well-regarded. Other factors were the ergonomics of the front cockpit in the Mi-24P being a lot better should the person want to fly the helicopter from there, and the ability for the pilot to employ the entire range of armaments without being overly reliant on another player or AI, which is important for single player.

Fri13, see the posts S.E.Bulba quoted by the project manager explaining why they didn't do the Mi-24V.

The official term for the gunner in Russian is "pilot-operator". Traditionally, the actual pilot is the crew commander, and thus more junior pilots sat out front. The pilot's duties are to fly the helicopter, navigate, and execute attack runs with unguided forward firing and free-fall weapons. The operator's job consists mainly of spotting targets visually or with the camera, steering the pilot onto these targets, and providing the crew with a complete picture of the battlefield situation. They are also entirely responsible for the Shturm/Ataka employment except for the trigger press, and can level bomb using the bombsight, and depending on the crew contract can provide additional services as the two see fit, like low altitude or dead reckoning navigation, radio management, etc. Basically, it's not much different from the RIO in the F-14 or the WSO on the F-15E. They might twiddle thumbs more than the pilot during cruise, but are worth their weight in gold in combat.

ED (or rather, Belsimtek, back in the research phase of the project) visited active duty regiments and spoke to both pilots and gunners, and were unanimously told that the 12.7mm machine gun is as good as ballast, so the crews recommended they model the 30mm cannon instead as that one was found to be very useful tactically. While this isn't explicitly said, I suspect other Mi-24D and Mi-24V operators share this opinion, as there are a lot of photos of the helicopters flying either with the gun dismounted, or with 23mm cannon pods under the wings to compensate for the lack of firepower.

For the non-Cyrillic friends, that's the Yadro-1G, R-863, R-828, SPU-8 intercom, and an MS-61 loudspeaker for the announcer. By the way, thanks for providing such good info all the time Sebulba!