S.E.Bulba

Google Translate I am glad that this information was at least something interesting to you. However, I doubt that anyone else besides you will want to solve the Cyrillic texts here and spend time translating them. :) I'm sorry, maybe I did not quite understand you correctly… but for some reason I do not remember that the article wrote about the systematic use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment for the transport of troops. IIRC, it mentions the use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment only for the emergency evacuation of the wounded, as well as for conducting aerial reconnaissance by combined-arms commanders.

Google Translate See attachment.

Google Translate Sorry, I'm not at all going to enter into polemics and waste time on translations, I just want to note that you have a somewhat amateurish idea about the functions of the Mi-24P second crew member (operator) in particular, and about the specifics of the combat use of attack helicopters in general. :)

Google Translate Despite the somewhat complicated style of this Russian text, you have correctly interpreted its translation. :yes:

«Семён Семёныч!» © :doh: Слона-то я и не приметил! :)

Google Translate One should not repeat like a mantra the words of the couch-based 'experts' whose superficial knowledge is based only on frankly partisan sources. What "successful combat trials" are you talking about? Yes, in Chechnya, the Ka-50 showed itself as a helicopter with relatively high aircraft performance characteristics, capable of performing combat missions in the daytime using an external targeting system (data link)… but nothing more. The Russian army, with its limited budget, does not need a highly specialized attack helicopter that does not fully meet the requirements of modern warfare. The army needs a universal round-the-clock machine capable with sufficient efficiency to carry out combat missions to search for and destroy targets both with the use of an external targeting system and independently… both during the day and at night, including in IFR weather conditions and at extremely low altitudes, as well as under the threat of enemy's AAAD. One helicopter pilot cannot provide all of the above requirements (especially those emphasized), this was recognized, among other things, by the developers of the Kamov JSC. If you take the trouble to translate an old article from the Krasnaya Zvezda, the official newspaper of the Russian Ministry of Defense, in which some Russian high-ranking military leaders express their assessments of the Mi-24, Mi-28 and Ka-50 helicopters, then you will learn a lot of new things for yourself [part 1 and part 2]… but I'm afraid it will break some of your templates. I will give you a small quote describing only one episode of comparative tests of the Mi-28 and Ka-50 prototypes in 1986.

Благодарю! Теперь понятно, почему в ИЭ вертолёта Ми-24В для всех условий применения С-24Б указан только один способ – без АЦВУ. Интересно, в DCS: Ми-24П будут добавлены эти НАР (С-13 и С-24), пусть даже только для ручного режима применения без АЦВУ?

НАР С-13 и С-24 в DCS: Ми-24П Благодарю за ответ! :thumbup: Александр, ещё вопрос: в ИЭ вертолёта Ми-24В также присутствуют НАР С-13 и С-24. Эти НАР реализованы в DCS World. В то же время, в одном из своих ответов Вы писа́ли о том, что в АЦВУ DCS: Ми-24П будут заложены как я понял только НАР С-5 и С-8. В DCS: Ми-24П не будет НАР С-13 и С-24? (АЦВУ реальных Ми-24П не дорабатывалось под применение этих НАР?)

Наверное лучше надо было в эту тему: Ракеты в DCS. Там кстати все любят по-английски писа́ть. :)

Google Translate The translation is a little flawed. The following would be more correct.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Google Translate In the photo, it is rather difficult to distinguish the performance characteristics of the S-8OFP2 rocket. Personally, I could only read what is indicated there in order (from top to bottom): The rest of the S-8OFP2 nameplate in the photo is obstructed by the S-8OFP1 rocket. I already wrote about the type of warhead and the fuse in my previous post. Perhaps you can make out the numbers on the nameplate better than me.

Вероятно очень даже летающий «экспонат». Судя по-всему, Ми-24П доработанные для применения УПК-23-250 шли на экспорт не только в страны Южной Америки, но и как минимум в Шри-Ланку. :) © Airliners.net.

Google Translate The S-8OFP1 and S-8OFP2 were prototypes of unguided rockets. They were first demonstrated at the IDELF-2006 international exhibition. Inscriptions on nameplates (from near lying to far): The S-8OFP1 rocket with a penetrating HE-fragmentation warhead and an instantaneous or delay contact fuse. The S-8OFP2 rocket with a HE-fragmentation warhead and an instantaneous contact fuse. In the 2010s, on the basis of these prototypes, a general-purpose S-8OFP Broneboyschik (Russian: Бронебойщик, 'Anti-tank rifleman') rocket was developed, in which the performance characteristics of the above two prototypes were combined. In 2019, the test cycle of this rocket was completed, and as the press writes, it began to be supplied to the Russian Aerospace Forces.

Да и против воздушных целей нормально. :)

УПК-23-250 в DCS: Ми-24П Что-то сначала не обратил внимания… сейчас перечитал и заинтересовало. В ИЭ вертолёта Ми-24В (книга 2) УПК-23-250 входят в состав основного вооружения Ми-24В, указывается методика их боевого применения. В Памятке лётчику вертолёта Ми-24 (составлена на основе ИЭ) УПК-23-250 также указаны в составе основного вооружения Ми-24 (например, стр.81 см. ниже). Видел УПК-23-250 на фото Ми-24Д/В. Правда почему-то в основном на машинах из стран Варшавского договора, однако попадались и на наших Ми-24 в Афгане (например, ISBN 978-5-699-40303-5 см. ниже). Вопрос: Ми-24Д/В доработали для применения УПК-23-250, а советские/российские Ми-24П не стали?

:thumbup:

:yes:

Google Translate I remembered… :) 1) ожидать в течение не этого года - ДА!) 2) -8КОМ, -8ОФП, -8ДМ (для С-5КО было изначально); 3) в реальности та, которую установит "вооружейник" на переключателе В1 (который в радиоотсеке), а у нас возможно сделаем по тому типу НАР, который в левом внутреннем блоке, чтобы не грузить пользователя необходимостью устанавливать тип НАР для АЦВУ в редакторе, или значением по умолчанию, если БД-2 окажется пустой (т.е. пользователь извращенный, делает несимметричную зарядку). Таким образом, если с правой стороны НАР отличаются, значит для них прицеливайся либо в АВТ с "учетом" на глаз, либо в РУЧН и сам ручками покрути прицел)); 4) в пределах процедур для членов экипажа, предписанных ИЭ при подготовке к боевому применению УРВ после запуска двигателей, не более; 5) ответил тов.S.E.Bulba)) 6) в DCS такая защита пока что не смоделирована для боевой техники. Если в ЕД решат такой геймплей делать, то нужно делать как полагается, а это не один день работы.. ПС.борттехника (который контролирует работу систем в мирное время) в вертолете не будет. Стрелок будет, но возможно не сразу.

:book:

Google Translate IIRC, if the AAMs launch system is installed on the helicopter, then both R-60 and R-60M can be used. It is unlikely that you can tell the R-60 from the R-60M from the photo. AFAIK, there seems to be a difference only in the diameter of the 'eyes' of their IR seekers, the difference between which is measured by several millimeters. In the last photo, the IR seeker is closed with a lid.

Google Translate For some reason, it seems to me that Michael Normann wrote his book, published in 2016, using Soviet/Russian sources. Yes, the Mi-24 units of the GSFG were partially armed with R-60 missiles, but it is surprising that Normann is transferring the test results in the TurkVO to some kind of "battlefield exercises" in the GSFG. :) You write in the English-language forum in German transcription: GSSD (Gruppe der Sowjetischen Streitkräfte in Deutschland). At the same time, I am writing in English transcription: GSFG (Group of Soviet Forces in Germany). In Russian transcription, it will be correct: ГСВГ (Группа советских войск в Германии). Do you think I wrote something wrong? :) This is not entirely true. You did not mention the presence of EES on helicopters during testing.

Google Translate That's about right. If necessary, the Mi-24P operator could carry out bombing either from a dive, or from a horizontal flight with a time count, keeping the helicopter on a course along a pre-selected landmark. However, I would like to remind you that the use of all unguided weapons is primarily the task of the Mi-24 pilot.

Google Translate Roughly the same as already described in the post above. Mi-24V/P pilot: using the ASP-17V electro-optical gunsight + the ATsVU analog-digital computing device (or with the ATsVU disabled, manually calculating corrections for bombing and moving the ASP-17V movable aiming mark). Mi-24V operator: using the KPS-53 reflector sighting station + the VSB-24 firing and bombing calculator (or with the VSB-24 disabled, manually calculating corrections for bombing). Mi-24P operator: using the PKI reflector sight, manually calculating corrections for bombing (as on aircraft from the WW2). :)