Jump to content

Mi-24 NAV & Targeting system capabilities


Bananabrai

Recommended Posts

It never fails to amuse me how westerners react to foreign equipment once they learn about it. Imagine being shocked that a first generation attack helicopter from the Soviet Union might not in fact have GPS guided munitions. The Soviets just didn't approach their tactical problems with as much blind faith in technical sophistication as the west did. You don't send one or two of anything you send many and just totally pulverize the grid square. Guys saying the Hind is closer to the Su-25A than the Apache are completely right. It was designed to be an integral part of an overall combined arms strategy-an operationally waged battle-not a tactically opportunistic one like westerns see it. 

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2021 at 12:47 AM, Bananabrai said:

Another question, not be understood as a request or some speculation:

 

Was there with any of the P-Hind users some that used early generations of NVGs?

Can we expect to get a NVG for the Hind, or will this not be a thing?

 

There were trials in Afg ~87 with both Mi24's and Mi8's from what I read. The problem is, owning those particular NVGs here is how you simulate it properly.

 

How to "simulate" flying with the PNV-57E in DCS:

 

1: Purchase really dark yellow sunglasses I mean really really dark, extra bonus if you can find some with thoriated glass so eventually you go blind. 

2: Buy Vaseline or other gooey petroleum based substance apply liberally to sunglasses front and back until you can't really see anything other than vague smeary shapes

3: slightly clear off a 5mm section right in the center you can kind-of see through (But still badly)

4: Purchase bright LED light strips wrap around the monitor to replicate the effect cabin lights have on your NVG's. 

5: purchase the highest power flash lamp you can and interface it with DCS, map it to the "trigger/fire" button.

 

Startup DCS

 

You shouldn't be able to clearly make out anything other than vague yellow/dark yellow/blackish shapes in about the center 5 degree FOV

Any time you use your weapon you should be blinded.

 

Enjoy "early generation" Night vision goggles for HIND...

 

If flying in VR, IDK, perhaps buy vodka or just rubbing alcohol and pour in your eyes every 5 min or so, you have VR you can afford it. (No don't do this not even in jest)

 

In a somewhat more serious fashion, AFAIK the NVG's were trialed only for night navigation and IR spotlights were required to see where they were going since that system is basically a Gen0 device. 0 combat ability, and they mostly sucked horribly so further testing was abandoned AFAIK. Mostly I think the pilot actually flew normally on instruments and the co-pilot used the NVG's for spotting and low level navigation. 

 

Probably after about 95-2000's era they had proper aviation goggles to use in theory, not sure how much Russia invested in that post cold war or when. But again, you gotta modify the pit lighting.

 

 

 

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
There were trials in Afg ~87 with both Mi24's and Mi8's from what I read. The problem is, owning those particular NVGs here is how you simulate it properly.
 
How to "simulate" flying with the PNV-57E in DCS:
 
1: Purchase really dark yellow sunglasses I mean really really dark, extra bonus if you can find some with thoriated glass so eventually you go blind. 
2: Buy Vaseline or other gooey petroleum based substance apply liberally to sunglasses front and back until you can't really see anything other than vague smeary shapes
3: slightly clear off a 5mm section right in the center you can kind-of see through (But still badly)
4: Purchase bright LED light strips wrap around the monitor to replicate the effect cabin lights have on your NVG's. 
5: purchase the highest power flash lamp you can and interface it with DCS, map it to the "trigger/fire" button.
 
Startup DCS
 
You shouldn't be able to clearly make out anything other than vague yellow/dark yellow/blackish shapes in about the center 5 degree FOV
Any time you use your weapon you should be blinded.
 
Enjoy "early generation" Night vision goggles for HIND...
 
If flying in VR, IDK, perhaps buy vodka or just rubbing alcohol and pour in your eyes every 5 min or so, you have VR you can afford it. (No don't do this not even in jest)
 
In a somewhat more serious fashion, AFAIK the NVG's were trialed only for night navigation and IR spotlights were required to see where they were going since that system is basically a Gen0 device. 0 combat ability, and they mostly sucked horribly so further testing was abandoned AFAIK. Mostly I think the pilot actually flew normally on instruments and the co-pilot used the NVG's for spotting and low level navigation. 
 
Probably after about 95-2000's era they had proper aviation goggles to use in theory, not sure how much Russia invested in that post cold war or when. But again, you gotta modify the pit lighting.
 
 
 
 
Now, that's what I call a challenge.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hind is the product of an Army that was still configured like a 1945 Tank Army-a configuration which was by no means an unwise one until around 1985 or so. Westerners think of everything in terms of squads and individual tank aces winning local battles. Soviet leaders did not think about minor setbacks these threats could manage. Germany's reliance on Ace Fighters and technical sophistication did it no good in 1944, there was no indication much had changed in 1965 or even in 1975. Battles were still likely to be events of what were fundamentally numbers and arms match ups. The Soviets did not need or want gimmicks, they wanted Armies. Precision was not important, being clever or shrewd were not considered valuable skillsets. (They were not played down as much as some Western observers tend to believe either) 

 

The Red Army functionally remained a 1945 Army throughout the rest of its life-although they were aware that they needed to initiate reform before the 80s-mainly because up until around 1983 or so it is likely that they were absolutely correct about their assessment of the geopolitical/military situation in Europe until just before the Warsaw Pact ended. ie: Not all that much had changed from the Operation Bagration and a big tank army crashing through the Fulda Gap was likely to rout NATO forces, seize West Germany, potentially invade France, and isolate Britain. In such a scenario Soviet Leadership also (correctly) guessed that Western Leaders would be unable to accept the conquest of continental Europe and would resort to a nuclear exchange, so no attack was ever launched because it was by no means certain in the Warsaw Pact that they would survive a WMD slug out while they assessed that the US probably would although with lots of damage. 

 

In this line of thought you ended with an Army that desired both mobility and firepower and got all the weapon systems with a balance of both. You got the T-62, the BMP, the Su-17, and the Hind. The Army of Deep Battle. Precision was not mentioned or asked for. Gadgetry and computers and automation just sound like things that'll break all the time. Soviet leaders thought about fundamentals. Hey not only should this thing be able to out-shoot enemy positions, but wouldn't it be cool if it could dismount an infantry squad to capture the position it just flattened too? 

 

We're not grounding anything because of a stupid malfunction light. Sortie. 


Edited by DocHawkeye
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DocHawkeye said:

Gadgetry and computers and automation just sound like things that'll break all the time.

The "automation" point i would disagree with. They used autoloader in tanks instead of a human loader, they have automation in their submarines to reduce crew size no western submarine has/had, the Buran "Spaceshuttle clone" flew fully automated, something the original spaceshuttle never could....

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Modules: KA-50, A-10C, FC3, UH-1H, MI-8MTV2, CA, MIG-21bis, FW-190D9, Bf-109K4, F-86F, MIG-15bis, M-2000C, SA342 Gazelle, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, F-14, C-101, FW-190A8, F-16C, F-5E, JF-17, SC, Mi-24P Hind, AH-64D Apache, Mirage F1

System: Win 11 Pro 64bit, Ryzen 3800X, 32gb RAM DDR4-3200, PowerColor Radeon RX 6900XT Red Devil ,1 x Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 2TB NVMe, 2 x Samsung SSD 2TB + 1TB SATA, MFG Crosswind Rudder Pedals - VIRPIL T-50CM and VIRPIL MongoosT-50 Throttle - HP Reverg G2, using only the latest Open Beta, DCS settings

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really talking low-level automation per se, something like an autoloader is reasonable enough since it enabled them to economize on crews. Thinking more along the lines of a FADEC or digital flight management system. 


Edited by DocHawkeye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine a country like germany, where not as much money is put into weaponry, as the big players put into it, especially after the reunification.

Example, the germans used Hueys to cover Hueys in the Luftwaffe for certain tasks, when the threat situation would be lower and no Bo-105s are available.

With that kind of thinking and availability of types as a pre requisit:

 

Would you say there is at least some system except for the Mk I eyeball to use for very very very light RECCE in the Hind?

Like the F/A-18 used Mavericks as visual/recon sensor or target finding in the early 90s.

 

What kind of sights for example does the Hind use for targeting the Shturms? I mean, the did not always had the best intel in Afghanistan, or did they only fly pre planned attacks?

Maybe there is also a link to a picture here in the forum already?

Alias in Discord: Mailman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has the Raduga optical sight for guiding the Shturms or Atakas. As far as I know, it is a stabilized optical system based on an old submarine periscope, but turned upside down. As far as I recall, it has two FOV settings along the lines of 5x-7x magnification, but might be wrong on that one.

 

No automatic rangefinding, target tracking, or low light capabilities though. However, the direction gunner's sight is pointed is also marked on pilot's gunsight as an aid for the pilot in aiming ungiuded stuff.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2021 at 8:14 PM, MAXsenna said:

Now, that's what I call a challenge. emoji16.png

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk
 

 

Just  smear  some vaseline  on your VR  lenses,  that'l  help with  the  propper  "simulation.

 

14 hours ago, WinterH said:

It has the Raduga optical sight for guiding the Shturms or Atakas. As far as I know, it is a stabilized optical system based on an old submarine periscope, but turned upside down. As far as I recall, it has two FOV settings along the lines of 5x-7x magnification, but might be wrong on that one.

 

No automatic rangefinding, target tracking, or low light capabilities though. However, the direction gunner's sight is pointed is also marked on pilot's gunsight as an aid for the pilot in aiming ungiuded stuff.

 

Hm..  Ranging...  I  wonder  how  they  could possibly  do that well in the  1960's  from  aircraft...

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Hm..  Ranging...  I  wonder  how  they  could possibly  do that well in the  1960's  from  aircraft...

As far as I can remember, whenever it was done, it was with a radar on attack planes back then. But to be fair, Mi-24P we are getting is an 80s aircraft with some 90s stuff to come after early access apparently. I think ranging lasers became a thing on attack helicopters in latter parts of 70s to early 80s? Apparently they did experiment with putting ranging lasers on Mi-24 on very limited numbers at some point, but it was never carried into mainstream variants until the latest versions in current use.

On Mi-24's with Raduga sight, range was estimated using hash marks and target's apparent size. Kind of similar to how you use marks on PSO scopes on SVD and such I suppose.

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, WinterH said:

As far as I can remember, whenever it was done, it was with a radar on attack planes back then. But to be fair, Mi-24P we are getting is an 80s aircraft with some 90s stuff to come after early access apparently. I think ranging lasers became a thing on attack helicopters in latter parts of 70s to early 80s? Apparently they did experiment with putting ranging lasers on Mi-24 on very limited numbers at some point, but it was never carried into mainstream variants until the latest versions in current use.

On Mi-24's with Raduga sight, range was estimated using hash marks and target's apparent size. Kind of similar to how you use marks on PSO scopes on SVD and such I suppose.

 

I was mostly being sarcastic, it was most likely something like a simple ranging radar, or possibly optical as you suggest or both.

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2021 at 2:44 PM, DocHawkeye said:

The Hind is the product of an Army that was still configured like a 1945 Tank Army-a configuration which was by no means an unwise one until around 1985 or so. Westerners think of everything in terms of squads and individual tank aces winning local battles. Soviet leaders did not think about minor setbacks these threats could manage. Germany's reliance on Ace Fighters and technical sophistication did it no good in 1944, there was no indication much had changed in 1965 or even in 1975. Battles were still likely to be events of what were fundamentally numbers and arms match ups. The Soviets did not need or want gimmicks, they wanted Armies. Precision was not important, being clever or shrewd were not considered valuable skillsets. (They were not played down as much as some Western observers tend to believe either) 

 

The Red Army functionally remained a 1945 Army throughout the rest of its life-although they were aware that they needed to initiate reform before the 80s-mainly because up until around 1983 or so it is likely that they were absolutely correct about their assessment of the geopolitical/military situation in Europe until just before the Warsaw Pact ended. ie: Not all that much had changed from the Operation Bagration and a big tank army crashing through the Fulda Gap was likely to rout NATO forces, seize West Germany, potentially invade France, and isolate Britain. In such a scenario Soviet Leadership also (correctly) guessed that Western Leaders would be unable to accept the conquest of continental Europe and would resort to a nuclear exchange, so no attack was ever launched because it was by no means certain in the Warsaw Pact that they would survive a WMD slug out while they assessed that the US probably would although with lots of damage. 

 

In this line of thought you ended with an Army that desired both mobility and firepower and got all the weapon systems with a balance of both. You got the T-62, the BMP, the Su-17, and the Hind. The Army of Deep Battle. Precision was not mentioned or asked for. Gadgetry and computers and automation just sound like things that'll break all the time. Soviet leaders thought about fundamentals. Hey not only should this thing be able to out-shoot enemy positions, but wouldn't it be cool if it could dismount an infantry squad to capture the position it just flattened too? 

 

We're not grounding anything because of a stupid malfunction light. Sortie. 

 

 

You are definately generalizing, it´s not true at all that precision and cleverness were not considered valuable. I am speaking from the other side of the curtain. Cleverness has always been a prime asset. Much of the soviet equipment was multi-use and thus cleverness was used in order to employ it in any situation (take for instance documented use of R-60 on Hinds on ground vehicles). Our cultures build mostly on cleverness. Same goes for how advanced certain systems were, take for instance SAM units. The whole umbrella covering the air above Soviet Union was an elaborate and advanced system, easily being on par with the western, if not more advanced.

 

What you state is partly right for the ordinary army, just like in any other country. However, all special missions were left to special operation units such as Spetsnaz, MVD, KGB and all the other GRUs. This is also the case for any other country. The western picture plays on propaganda that everything was square and dumb in USSR, but that´s definitely not true. You cannot generalise and simplify it like that. It is also completely wrong to state that Red Army remained a 1945-type of army until 1980´s. With new systems, improved training, lessons learned from their elaborate history, including WWII, it was definitely evolving at an accelerated rate. That´s also why the west got so worried. Not only that, but the rather elaborate war on intelligence during Cold War. Many western books and media depict the Soviets as a machine of magnitude where nobody has their own mind, but rather think collectively as one and thus it´s a form of mind control when you are on "that side". In reality, nothing could be further away. It seems like that, because the Soviet military was very strict, in order to control an army of that size, you needed everyone to follow orders. That´s also where the difference between airforces come into play. Whereas a western pilot would often engage what he spotted during his flight (unless the mission was specified), the Soviet pilot went out for a specific task and goal in mind. Even if he/she would spot enemy combatant units underneath, often their own mission had higher priority. That´s not to say that targets of opportunity weren´t engaged, of course they were too. In reality though, everything was planned rather carefully and each mission had it´s priority. It wasn´t as random as in the west, if you will.

 

Although Soviets came later to the digital computers (mainly because it remained untested in war time), they always used many analogue ones, as well as automation. There has always been much focus on that. Take for instance autoloaders of T64. It´s one of the first tanks to feature a fully automated autoloader (I believe it was the first), and thus skip a 4th crew member. Additionally, there has always been much focus on interoperability in different climates, from snowy and cold Siberia to hot deserts of ´stan republics. That and quick deployment of units, often automated mechanisms to reduce the amount of personnel needed.

 

This whole topic is really too big to discuss over a forum, because going into detail, one notices that nothing is as black and white as media would have it to. People lived, and well too, on both sides of the curtain and while there were some differences here and there it mostly came down to who was in a commanding/leading position. Be it a general that was hungry for power (didn´t care for his troops, there are examples of this on both sides of the curtain), or one that cared for each and every and thus sent no-one to situations that would account for high loss of life.


Edited by zerO_crash
  • Like 9

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A side question out of personal curiosity:

 

Why did the soviets put in a western - style( for lack of a better word)  attitude indicator into the hind?  What I mean is, why did they divert from their usual version of the attitude instrument,  where the horizon is fixed and the aircraft symbol itself  moves in correlation to attitude changes? Most of their fighters up to Mig29/SU-27 use that system and so does the Mi-8 helicopter.

 

Why did they switch for the Mi-24 to the system used by most western aircraft, where the aircraft symbol itself is rigid and the horizon moves in the background?

 

Regards,


Snappy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Snappy said:

A side question out of personal curiosity:

 

Why did the soviets put in a western - style( for lack of a better word)  attitude indicator into the hind?  What I mean is, why did they divert from their usual version of the attitude instrument,  where the horizon is fixed and the aircraft symbol itself  moves in correlation to attitude changes? Most of their fighters up to Mig29/SU-27 use that system and so does the Mi-8 helicopter.

 

Why did they switch for the Mi-24 to the system used by most western aircraft, where the aircraft symbol itself is rigid and the horizon moves in the background?

 

Regards,


Snappy.

 

I don't know for sure, but knowing the soviet way, they probably had a lot of them being manufactured for other aircraft, and it was just cheaper to use those in the Hind as they had the supply for it.

Might be completely off here, but that's usually been the case in soviet manufacturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Apok said:

Regarding night time capabilities.

Video of night time attack by Syrian Mi-24P from cockpit:

 

That just shows the Syrian forces don't care what or who they are shooting at...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

i7 10700K OC 5.1GHZ / 500GB SSD & 1TB M:2 & 4TB HDD / MSI Gaming MB / GTX 1080 / 32GB RAM / Win 10 / TrackIR 4 Pro / CH Pedals / TM Warthog

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
On 10/5/2020 at 12:48 PM, randomTOTEN said:

How does the DISS resolve the difference in direction between the paper map and the aircraft compass system?

So it looks like the answer to my question might be the KM-2 control in the front cockpit. I will have to run some tests to learn this control.

Also I've noticed my assumption was incorrect. The paper map is not oriented to true north (meridian lines vertical), but instead appears to be what I consider DCS grid north (F10 vertical). So the only thing the KM-2 needs to account for is the DCS magnetic variation. Or, more accurately, the deviation between gyro north and grid north.


Edited by randomTOTEN
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, randomTOTEN said:

So it looks like the answer to my question might be the KM-2 control in the front cockpit. I will have to run some tests to learn this control.

Also I've noticed my assumption was incorrect. The paper map is not oriented to true north (meridian lines vertical), but instead appears to be what I consider DCS grid north (F10 vertical). So the only thing the KM-2 needs to account for is the DCS magnetic variation. Or, more accurately, the deviation between gyro north and grid north.

 

So far in my tests, I can't figure out what KM-2 actually affects. No matter what the values I set, nothing is affected. Map moves the same and DISS-15 gives same values.

I've read some material this morning and it sounds like setting magvar on the KM-2 makes the aircraft "fly in true headings". It should show true heading on the HSI and it should affect the DISS-15 dopler navigation. Also Mi-8 has a similar system - KM-8. You should be able to set magvar there and it should do the same - make the aircraft systems work in true headings. But i cannot find where this KM-8 is mounted. This is what it looks like:

image018.gif

image124.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...