Rocket types for Mi-8

[Reros]

Hello everyone!
Currently the Mi-8MTV2 can only carry S-8 80mm rocket pods in game.

However, S-5 (57mm) and S-13 (122mm) rocket pods are universal, so they should be able to be carried too. Here is a MI-8T, which has the same mountings, carrying S-5.

 

For the Mi-8MTV2 in game, could we have these rocket pods as well? It would add some nice diversity. It should barely be any work, as the pods already exist and are also already coded onto the Hind, and theres no internal computer or anything.

 

Anyway, thanks for reading my post. Have a good one!

[domi]

+1 for more Mi-8 love!

[Tom_]

+1

[DieSaureGurke]

+1

[zerO_crash]

8 hours ago, Reros said:

Hello everyone!
Currently the Mi-8MTV2 can only carry S-8 80mm rocket pods in game.

However, S-5 (57mm) and S-13 (122mm) rocket pods are universal, so they should be able to be carried too. Here is a MI-8T, which has the same mountings, carrying S-5.

 

For the Mi-8MTV2 in game, could we have these rocket pods as well? It would add some nice diversity. It should barely be any work, as the pods already exist and are also already coded onto the Hind, and theres no internal computer or anything.

 

Anyway, thanks for reading my post. Have a good one!

 

This has already been discussed before and concluded with a "no". The reason for it is that by the time Mi-8MTV2 came out (the one we have), Soviet Union didn´t use the S-5s anymore. As such, it would be a unrealistic weapon for this specific airframe, which indeed is a Soviet original Mi-8MTV2. S-13 were not used on this airframe either. The option was there as an upgrade, but again, Soviet Union did not use them.

 

Regardless, the S-8´s do their job perfectly.

Edited March 30, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Reros]

On 3/30/2021 at 8:40 PM, zerO_crash said:

 

This has already been discussed before and concluded with a "no". The reason for it is that by the time Mi-8MTV2 came out (the one we have), Soviet Union didn´t use the S-5s anymore. As such, it would be a unrealistic weapon for this specific airframe, which indeed is a Soviet original Mi-8MTV2. S-13 were not used on this airframe either. The option was there as an upgrade, but again, Soviet Union did not use them.

 

Regardless, the S-8´s do their job perfectly.

 

Alright, but they probably still had some S-5s in reserve. It's not like I'm asking for Vikhr or aim120 or something. Just something that *could have reasonably been used* and also provides variety and a better product. It won't break the game, (because we are, in fact, playing a videogame). I think there are way larger issues with suspension of disbelief than having rockets that are still in stock be mounted on an aircraft they could totally be mounted on and probably would have if it came to conflict.

 

As far as I can read, S-13s would fit and be usable without any modification. Same argument as above, I suppose.

 

Anyway, I understand realism is an important issue, but in my opinion a *possible* 0.0000001% realism loss that 99.999% of people don't even know about, is worth sacrificing to get a better product.

[zerO_crash]

17 hours ago, Reros said:

Alright, but they probably still had some S-5s in reserve. It's not like I'm asking for Vikhr or aim120 or something. Just something that *could have reasonably been used* and also provides variety and a better product. It won't break the game, (because we are, in fact, playing a videogame). I think there are way larger issues with suspension of disbelief than having rockets that are still in stock be mounted on an aircraft they could totally be mounted on and probably would have if it came to conflict.

 

As far as I can read, S-13s would fit and be usable without any modification. Same argument as above, I suppose.

 

Anyway, I understand realism is an important issue, but in my opinion a *possible* 0.0000001% realism loss that 99.999% of people don't even know about, is worth sacrificing to get a better product.

 

No, most S-5s were mainly delegated to allies after that. Full S-8 rearmament. We are not dealing here in "what ifs". This is a simulator strives for realism, not a game. This sim has gotten this far because of its strong core values. You ask for this, others would ask for small changes on other aircraft, and all of a sudden the realism would be lost as a whole. We don´t deal that way here. Mi8MTV2 never mounted S-5s in Russia, that´s all there is to it. Realism above all.

Edited April 10, 2021 by zerO_crash

[Art-J]

Well, apparently ED itself already went somewhat liberal with realism about F-16 loadouts I believe, or with initially planned BS3 loadouts. Let's not even discuss 3rd party modules with some fantasy loadouts on MiG-21 as an example. But I kind of agree, I don't see the point in making things even worse.

 

On another note, wasn't there a custom mod available which added S-5 support for Mi-8? Or was it strictly visual? I think I saw it long ago in mods section, but my memory is fuzzy.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Art-J

[corn322]

I prefer more options rather than less options. Who is to say what is or isn't "realistic" in a scenario I made up?

[zerO_crash]

On 4/10/2021 at 9:11 PM, corn322 said:

I prefer more options rather than less options. Who is to say what is or isn't "realistic" in a scenario I made up?

 

That is a wrong way to think about it. If ED was supposed to adjust itself to you only, or the masses, then we should have every possible loadout on every possible aircraft. And every possible aircraft should have the possibility to take off it´s wings, take out the engines, swap with a propeller and make a lawnmover, just because "my scenario". This doesn´t make any sense. This simulator strives for realism, and even as Art-J mentioned, there have been some liberties (3-4 modules), however they were heavily criticised for a good reason. Hopefully with an understanding that people want ultimate realism here, not fantasy. This is a simulator for a good reason, and not a "build it yourself" game. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by zerO_crash

[StevanJ]

Is this the Mi8 gunship appreciation thread?
 

 

[Dragon1-1]

On 4/10/2021 at 10:20 AM, zerO_crash said:

No, most S-5s were mainly delegated to allies after that. 

That's reason enough, IMO. Our Mi-8 isn't available only to the USSR. I think the S-5s would be fine on the Mi-8, that would allow for simulating ones from countries that did use the S-5 on it.

 

That said, the S-5 was pretty useless and it is doubly so in DCS. Not enough accuracy, not enough firepower, and DCS doesn't even model the very meager fragmentation that it has.

[zerO_crash]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That's reason enough, IMO. Our Mi-8 isn't available only to the USSR. I think the S-5s would be fine on the Mi-8, that would allow for simulating ones from countries that did use the S-5 on it.

 

That said, the S-5 was pretty useless and it is doubly so in DCS. Not enough accuracy, not enough firepower, and DCS doesn't even model the very meager fragmentation that it has.

The version of the specific Mi8MTV2 that we have, is a Soviet version, and this one didn’t have S-5 rockets at any point. This is not a quasi-version, but a specific one from Soviet Union. That’s all there is to it. Realism, that’s they keyword, not “almost-realism”.

[Dragon1-1]

If you want realism, then both S-5 and S-130 should be allowed on the Mi-8, because there's nothing preventing them from being mounted. Can you say that after USSR broke up, none of them went to other countries that used (and still use) the S-5? I'd say it's more likely than not, though it's hard to say for sure, given that a Google search will just find DCS-related content and nothing else about this particular variant. And if it by some miracle wasn't, we have a bunch of skins for other countries, should they be removed? 

 

ED's policy is to allow loadouts that are physically possible, even if some of them are prohibited by policy. Our Mi-8 is capable of using the rockets in question. That's what they did on the Viper.

[zerO_crash]

On 4/14/2021 at 6:17 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

If you want realism, then both S-5 and S-130 should be allowed on the Mi-8, because there's nothing preventing them from being mounted. Can you say that after USSR broke up, none of them went to other countries that used (and still use) the S-5? I'd say it's more likely than not, though it's hard to say for sure, given that a Google search will just find DCS-related content and nothing else about this particular variant. And if it by some miracle wasn't, we have a bunch of skins for other countries, should they be removed? 

 

ED's policy is to allow loadouts that are physically possible, even if some of them are prohibited by policy. Our Mi-8 is capable of using the rockets in question. That's what they did on the Viper.

 

No! Neither S-5 and S-13 were mounted on this revision of the Mi8-MTV2, in the Russian Armed Forces. It is not just an Mi8, it´s a specific one, and everything is up to spec on this version, also whatever was used in service on it. Realism is about what was mounted on it. Also, you do not just "google-search" content like this. Info relevant to the Mi8-MTV2 can be found in the Russian language. As to skins, in a sense they should. However they are kept in to be able to participate in fictional scenarios. What you don´t distinguish is that there is one thing to have a fictional skin, and it is something completely different to modify the aircraft or put loadout on it which was never used on it!

 

No, ED´s policy is not to allow loadouts that are "physically" possible. Their policy is to allow loadouts that are permitted IRL and were used IRL. The Apache will not get the APKWS, even if it´s the same pod as Hydra 70. The specific block Apache didn´t have it, and thus this won´t have it. The russian Ugroza-system (which came before APKWS, -kor) is also supposedly compatible with standard mounts. However none of the aircraft we have, ever used it, therefore we don´t have it. It´s that simple.

 

There is really nothing more to discuss here. You cannot change the fact that Mi8-MTV2 never used S-5 and S-13 in the Russian Armed Forces IRL. This Mi8 represents a Russian specific one, and therefore it will not come, unless a different variant is made. That´s it!

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

No, ED´s policy is not to allow loadouts that are "physically" possible. Their policy is to allow loadouts that are permitted IRL and were used IRL.

Then how come we have 3x Mavs and the 4x HARM on the Viper? 

 

Face it, this argument is nonsense. Yes, ED policy is inconsistent on guided rockets (and Ugroza isn't even modeled in the sim, unlike APKWS), but restricting to things that are permitted is stupid, and they don't do it with anything else. If it is physically compatible, and would require no modification (which is the case for S-5 and S-13 on Mi-8), then it should be put in. Just like a fictional skin. Painting the aircraft in an arbitrary color scheme and a different nation's roundels is no more forbidden than putting S-5s on it. The very same "fictional scenario" argument applies here.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

No, ED´s policy is not to allow loadouts that are "physically" possible. Their policy is to allow loadouts that are permitted IRL and were used IRL. !

 

Hornet loadouts by ED:

 

AGM-62 Wall-Eye was out-of-service in 1995-1996 (out of inventory).

AGM-65E2/L is the laser maverick that supports self-designation, came in service 2012 (Our 65E acts like E21/L).

ATFLIR was not in service until 2006-2009 for F/A-18C.

LITENING II was not in use for F/A-18C until 2006-2008.

 

Similar things are with Viper and Warthog...

ED policy is to just pick something they like and make excuses when ever they would be required to be remove hard work implemented weapons and systems, simply put "We just want to" is their reasoning. Not technical facts or not political loadouts. 

 

Like do you want mavericks removed from Viper because that specific aircraft didn't carry any mavericks in 2007 for any training even? No, you don't as you want to have mavericks because it technically can have them even when politically it didn't use them in 2007.

 

ED just removed modders capability to make realistic weapon loadouts for modules by encrypting weapons, so there went even that option. So all you can do is either try to talk sense to ED, and just accept their decision no matter how illogical it is because they are the one who has the code.

 

Quote

This Mi8 represents a Russian specific one, and therefore it will not come, unless a different variant is made. That´s it!

"Please ED, remove the Mi-8 from being available for any other country than Russia in DCS missions...."

 

Edited April 25, 2021 by Fri13

[Stratos]

I have to agree with Fri13 here, seems that ED policy is inconsitent, some things are allowed, some others are not, and now that modder editable loadouts are encrypted, we have lost a excellent way to solve the issue by ourselves. Hope ED can rethink that and let us work in loadouts as soon as possible.

[Fri13]

3 hours ago, Stratos said:

I have to agree with Fri13 here, seems that ED policy is inconsitent, some things are allowed, some others are not, and now that modder editable loadouts are encrypted, we have lost a excellent way to solve the issue by ourselves. Hope ED can rethink that and let us work in loadouts as soon as possible.

 

The only thing that ED should enforce is technical compatibility and capability. 

Forget the politics out of the simulator. 

As well ED needs to understand that every module they make, will be in-service for multiple years before last of them gets either retired or upgraded to something else, so every module needs to have realistic compatibility through their whole service period and not just one year. 

 

This does not open any module to be "fantasy" or "sci-fi" where suddenly a Mi-8 would be carrying Vikhr or ATAKA missiles and so on. It is very simple thing, if something is compatible and usable as is, then it is there. 

 

ED can then choose their own official loadouts for mission editor / mission for players to choose just by clicking as their political view sees to fit. But anyone could still go and build own custom loadouts based their mission history. 

 

Like few years ago Russia restarted S-5 manufacturing. Like this is what example the unsure Wikipedia says:

 

"In late 2019, Russia announced it would resume production of the S-5 rocket for the first time since production ceased in 1990. The improved S-5U is 1,090 mm (3.28 ft) long and weighs 6 kg (13.23 lb), making it longer and heavier than the previous S-5M, though it is compatible with older rocket pods....  ...It features a universal warhead that can penetrate 150 mm (5.9 in) of armor, explode into 500 2 g (0.071 oz) splinters, and has incendiary elements; combat efficiency is comparable to the S-8 rocket"

 

So, improved S-5 rockets available after 2019. Who would have thought that after all the talking how trash they are?

150 mm armor penetration is excellent considering the usual targets as there is no wheeled APC and most IFV are vulnerable for it, not to even forget every car, bunker, building and such. 

 But even when production ceased in 1990, they likely had them in the warehouses. But even that doesn't really change the fact that is the Mi-8MTv2 compatible with the S-5 rocket pods or not. 

 

I don't have any faith that ED would change their argument for weapon loadouts, especially when it is a old module that is wanted to be left for "maintained" status.

They have their business plans and if they have not included there such things, then it can take years again until such possibility appears that someone could consider a investment of money and time for such modules. 

 

 

[Fri13]

On 4/14/2021 at 7:17 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

given that a Google search will just find DCS-related content and nothing else about this particular variant.

 

That is the problem of the Internet. Even when we are living in 2021, there is still a very serious iron curtain between East and West. Gathering information from the Cold War period is still a challenge even when it is already 30-50 years from this date to history. There are too many skeletons in the closets and too much information on paper and books, and archives that are just forgotten and hidden.

Just alone the language barriers are causing troubles, and it doesn't help at all that Google and such will get saturated with a fan made content from DCS World that just makes it even more difficult to find information from black corners of the web. 

 

When the Mi-8MTv2 was announced, I couldn't really find anything about it. Only about the T, and TM, and then MTv5. There were some mentions about some similar other variants but that MTv2 is mostly just unknown or non-existing one.

What begs a lot for that why did Belsimtek even originally decide to make it, and even ignore to make a proper bomb sight to it, and MG to front, and mine laying etc... 

 

[Dragon1-1]

Presumably they had access to a real example of this specific type of helo. They decided they wanted a Mi-8 to complement the Huey, and then it happened that MTV2 was the variant they could get, so they made that one.

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Presumably they had access to a real example of this specific type of helo. They decided they wanted a Mi-8 to complement the Huey, and then it happened that MTV2 was the variant they could get, so they made that one.

 

Pretty wild, but good assumption. Because if the Mi-8MTv2 is so rare that you can't find much information about it anyways, then wouldn't it been more sensible to... Like pick something that is more widely accessible for them? Sure the lead developer might have had personal experience with it or something, but just saying that they did pick a pretty "secret aircraft" to begin with.

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

It's not that it's rare, it could be pretty common, but obscure, being lumped in with "Mi-8MTV" or the Mi-17V (which is the export designation) in most sources. The entire MTV series is far from rare, and they are incremental upgrades from one another. I think it's the 6 hardpoints might have been the reason we have this particular variant, MTV-3 onwards has four.

 

It's MTV-2, not MTv2, BTW. The "V" is not "version", but "Vysotnyy" (high altitude). It's a high altitude version of the Mi-8MT.

[zerO_crash]

On 4/25/2021 at 12:03 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

Then how come we have 3x Mavs and the 4x HARM on the Viper? 

 

Face it, this argument is nonsense. Yes, ED policy is inconsistent on guided rockets (and Ugroza isn't even modeled in the sim, unlike APKWS), but restricting to things that are permitted is stupid, and they don't do it with anything else. If it is physically compatible, and would require no modification (which is the case for S-5 and S-13 on Mi-8), then it should be put in. Just like a fictional skin. Painting the aircraft in an arbitrary color scheme and a different nation's roundels is no more forbidden than putting S-5s on it. The very same "fictional scenario" argument applies here.

 

It is unfortunate that ED gave into this, based on a couple loud children on the forums that have no idea about practices IRL and what was permitted as valid loadout. Kids posting pictures of test-aircraft from Eglin AFB (tail prefix "ET" and "OT") with 6 mavericks and proving to the experienced how f*** clueless they are. This is what forums become when the sim becomes accessible to the average Joe, as sad as that sounds. More is not always better. The ridiculous threads that start infesting these forums are practically mostly by inexperienced and new members that really have no clue what DCS is and what it strives for. Their whining and stupid suggestions are what´s making the IRL-relevant mechanics, pilots, crew chiefs and others stop bothering to engage in open discussions and rather join their closed enclaves. These SME´s have much valuable info that get´s lost between tons of irrelevant and idiotic posts which bring nothing more than "I want x", regardless of whether it´s realistic or not!

 

Even if that is the case with F-16 and F-18 (Mig21Bis as well), we should strive for realism, not claim those cases as an evidence that ED should expand on the practice and include each and every loadout for each and every aircraft, no matter how unrealistic it is. The idea is only stupid for you if you don´t understand it. This can definitely be corrected with time, and it ought to be said that the module still is in Early Access, therefore, let´s wait until it´s finished before making any final statements.

 

As to Mi-8MTV2, you really don´t understand the significant difference between a fictional paint and actually altering loadout of a given aircraft thus changing, expanding or shrinking it´s combat abilities. It gives a wrong perception of the given aircraft, its doctrine and what role it was meant to fit. No, restricting weapons or systems to what this specific aircraft carried IRL is not stupid, it is realistic. Read what that word means. It has nothing to do with your unfulfilled wishes of flying an aircraft that was run in a different configuration with some different systems in other countries. What it has to do with, is finding manuals and actually confirming that those were the only differences between them. 

 

This is precisely what was made wrong with the Mig21Bis as a third party module. Half of the weapons on this module were never used by the PVO Mig21Bis. The weapons were initially added by Leatherneck simulations because they believed that this was the only Mig21-model that would enter DCS for a long time to come, if ever at all. Thus, allow "us" to pretend like we are flying a different Mig21 with different weapons. The amount of confusion it made with weapons that physically cannot be guided by that radar (Saphir RP-22 SMA), or pylons that lack wiring for certain others is criminal. The intention was good, but for a study sim where IRL SME´s and pilots are asking about the color of each wire and how a system interacts with another is just asking for problems down the road. Instead, from the very beginning, a foot should have been put down to create a specific bort Mig21Bis and no imaginary loadouts.

 

Half of what you write are assumptions, not anything specific, besides the comparison with F-16 and F-18. I for one am partly Russian, I speak and write Cyrillic. My grandfather worked at a factory creating Mig15´s and Mig21´s, specifically the tail-units, in Poland under a certificate known as Lim-15 and Lim-21. I have a pretty good idea about what I´m talking about when it comes to Russian/Eastern modules. Whatever I don´t know, I search it or ask relevant people (either online, or F2F) and get my answers, instead of assuming anything. You have to ask yourself if it is DCS at all that you wish to fly, and nothing something else, more arcade where all your wishes for imaginary loadout will be fulfilled. This is a mil-sim, not quasi like Arma.

 

(No one stated anything about what the "V" stands for. In case you don´t know, "M" stands for modernised (in practise, TV3 engines, among some other general improvements) and "T" for transport. That is not the discussion here.)

Edited April 30, 2021 by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

On 4/25/2021 at 2:29 PM, Stratos said:

I have to agree with Fri13 here, seems that ED policy is inconsitent, some things are allowed, some others are not, and now that modder editable loadouts are encrypted, we have lost a excellent way to solve the issue by ourselves. Hope ED can rethink that and let us work in loadouts as soon as possible.

 

They made a good choice with regards to LUA´s being locked (my personal opinion). People have to start asking themselves if it is really realism that they want. Sure, a fictional livery should not be permitted, but due to the low amount of aircraft, so be it. That is not intrusive. Custom systems and loudouts, that is however something completely different. But yes, they have diverted from their strict rules and policy recently, something that I am not too fond of, because again, it just creates confusion in the long run. At the same time, one has to remember that hey have a business to run, and if 6 vs 4 mavericks will get them that many more customers, then sadly, that is a decision overruled by the business-model. Sad but true.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by BIGNEWY
removed personal comments