Mi-24p Armament

[Fri13]

On 5/29/2021 at 9:48 PM, Lucas_From_Hell said:

This was one of the reasons why the development team working on the Mi-24 decided to forego the PK on the Mi-8 - you lose a lot of visibility for a gun that will be shooting at bullet sponges, no point doing that until there's a rework of how infantry and bullets interact.

That is key point for so many things in DCS. 

No sense to make a minelaying when you don't have proper mine system, ground units interaction with them.

No reason to add the bombing sight when again interaction with ground units is missing. 

 

If we would get some point the suppressive effect with the weapons, proper infantry behavior and vehicle damage modeling, then a machinegun becomes effective weapon for many purposes. 

 

I am yet to test the gunpods for Mi-24 but they were not so impressive on Mi-8 or even in UH-1. All helicopters suffers from this problem.

If that gets fixed, there is better reason then possibly in future make a Mi-24V variant as suddenly the 12.7 mm would be more useful.

 

Now it is the 30 mm and rockets that plays the game. 

[sublime]

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

That is key point for so many things in DCS. 

No sense to make a minelaying when you don't have proper mine system, ground units interaction with them.

No reason to add the bombing sight when again interaction with ground units is missing. 

 

If we would get some point the suppressive effect with the weapons, proper infantry behavior and vehicle damage modeling, then a machinegun becomes effective weapon for many purposes. 

 

I am yet to test the gunpods for Mi-24 but they were not so impressive on Mi-8 or even in UH-1. All helicopters suffers from this problem.

If that gets fixed, there is better reason then possibly in future make a Mi-24V variant as suddenly the 12.7 mm would be more useful.

 

Now it is the 30 mm and rockets that plays the game. 

Fri the gunpods are stronger than I thought they would be (and they look awesome with green and red tracers!).

But effectiveness wise they're hard. I tried them in the disaster relief mission and my aim simply isn't there.  I still think many of the dcs problems would apply though they have some sting to them; but you reaallllly gotta be precise. (As you said no suppression) The rockets are much much more capable (obv)

Edited June 17, 2021 by sublime

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, sublime said:

Fri the gunpods are stronger than I thought they would be (and they look awesome with green and red tracers!).

But effectiveness wise they're hard. I tried them in the disaster relief mission and my aim simply isn't there.  I still think many of the dcs problems would apply though they have some sting to them; but you reaallllly gotta be precise. (As you said no suppression) The rockets are much much more capable (obv)

 

 

Well... that is nice for a change. In the Ka-50 the 30mm or even 23mm cannons were much more effective than rockets in almost all circumstances (with the possible exception of the S-13)

[sublime]

10 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Well... that is nice for a change. In the Ka-50 the 30mm or even 23mm cannons were much more effective than rockets in almost all circumstances (with the possible exception of the S-13)

I never had any luck with rockets in game besides laser guided ones too. But idk I wasn't even using s24s.. plastered 2 m113s yesterday. Gotten other ifvs and vehicles too with this.  I'm assuming it's the same rockets. Maybe the platform difference or who knows.

The fixed cannons are no slouch either. You feel like it's shooting basketballs or something

Edited June 17, 2021 by sublime

[Flia]

Do we get UPK-23 guns pods too ?

[Northstar98]

2 hours ago, Flia said:

Do we get UPK-23 guns pods too ?

 

Unfortunately not, the reasoning being is that they specifically want to go for a domestic Russian version circa mid 90s (at the earliest), who doesn't use the UPK-23-250s.

 

Though, unlike more sophisticated aircraft, I'm not sure what changes you'll have to make to facilitate the UPK-23-250 (I'm guessing it uses the existing position for GUV-8700 gun pod, though if so I doubt you'd have CCIP symbology (or you'd have the wrong CCIP symbology)).

 

Hypothetically it should be relatively easier to do multiple variants of the Hind. I for one am still hoping for a late 70s/80s Mi-24V. As well as exports (such an NVA Mi-24P w. SPO-15).

Edited June 18, 2021 by Northstar98

[Flia]

21 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Unfortunately not, the reasoning being is that they specifically want to go for a domestic Russian version circa mid 90s (at the earliest), who doesn't use the UPK-23-250s.

 

Though, unlike more sophisticated aircraft, I'm not sure what changes you'll have to make to facilitate the UPK-23-250 (I'm guessing it uses the existing position for GUV-8700 gun pod).

 

Hypothetically it should be relatively easier to do multiple variants of the Hind. I for one am still hoping for a late 70s/80s Mi-24V. As well as exports (such an NVA Mi-24P w. SPO-15).

 

Aha. Thank you for explanation.

[Fri13]

20 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Unfortunately not, the reasoning being is that they specifically want to go for a domestic Russian Mi-24P version circa mid 90s (at the earliest), who that doesn't use the UPK-23-250s.

 

And why would it when it has a 30 mm accurate 250 shell cannon? 

 

 

 

20 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Though, unlike more sophisticated aircraft, I'm not sure what changes you'll have to make to facilitate the UPK-23-250 (I'm guessing it uses the existing position for GUV-8700 gun pod, though if so I doubt you'd have CCIP symbology (or you'd have the wrong CCIP symbology)).

 

Probably replace a one circuit board in box that is associated with specific weapon selector position for calculating parameters and then the selector panel with proper labels. All done in logic that doesn't cause conflict with other weapons.

 

But just to use them as in Mi-8, you probably could just mount them and select GUV position as you say. And then use manual ranging.

 

20 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

Hypothetically it should be relatively easier to do multiple variants of the Hind. I for one am still hoping for a late 70s/80s Mi-24V. As well as exports (such an NVA Mi-24P w. SPO-15).

 

AFAIK the Mi-24V should be easy. Front cockpit layout to be redone from the front and left, add the rotating gunsight for operator and remove the 30 mm cannon externally, and slight modification to commander weapons panel to fire YakB in fixed position in case of emergency. 

 

I would pay extra 30€ for Mi-24V variant in 3 years from now.

 

For SPO-15 I would leave them as is out. Only really reason why, I would like to have a proper SPO-15 for Su-25A, Su-27S and MiG-29's.

But because ED is making MiG-29A, it means that they would update the SPO-15 logic and functionality to other modules. This BECAUSE they said that when they do full fidelity module with SPO-15 then they will fix FC3 planes with it. 

 

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

And why would it when it has a 30 mm accurate 250 shell cannon?

 

No idea, but you do get them on the Su-25s which have essentially, the same gun. Though granted you can depress those pods.

 

2 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Probably replace a one circuit board in box that is associated with specific weapon selector position for calculating parameters and then the selector panel with proper labels. All done in logic that doesn't cause conflict with other weapons.

 

But just to use them as in Mi-8, you probably could just mount them and select GUV position as you say. And then use manual ranging.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the 2 gun pods just needed the same firing signal from the hardpoints.

 

You could still use automatic ranging, but the CCIP pipper will be off.

 

2 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

AFAIK the Mi-24V should be easy. Front cockpit layout to be redone from the front and left, add the rotating gunsight for operator and remove the 30 mm cannon externally, and slight modification to commander weapons panel to fire YakB in fixed position in case of emergency.

 

So far, I'm pretty sure the pilot cockpit stays identical, with exactly the same features with no changes - the only thing is the weapons selector (though that probably just re-labels the weapon selector, replacing the 30mm fixed cannon, with the YakB).

 

For the external model, as you said, remove the GSh-30-2K, and add the YakB in the trainable turret.

 

One thing I wonder about is countermeasures, most photos of Vs I can find online have the same countermeasures set-up, but without the aerodynamic fairing that we have. The countermeasures panel however looks to be different, and is placed near the sight control panel near the co-pilot-operator's right shoulder.

 

On a related note, the other thing that would need doing (if we're going for an earlier V) is the 3D model at least for Lipa (like what we have in the Mi-8), though it can remain non-functional for now, as we barely have any MANPADS that it can counter effectively.

 

FDM should be basically exactly the same, the only potential things that might crop up are CoG and recoil force, I doubt the change in drag is significant or noticeable at all.

 

As you said, the biggest hurdle is the significant changes to the co-pilot operator cockpit.

 

2 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

I would pay extra 30€ for Mi-24V variant in 3 years from now.

 

Yeah, I would definitely pay for it. It was after all the most produced Hind, and probably the most iconic Cold War era Hind there is (well, either that or the D), it can also replace the existing legacy 3D model.

 

2 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

For SPO-15 I would leave them as is out. Only really reason why, I would like to have a proper SPO-15 for Su-25A, Su-27S and MiG-29's.

But because ED is making MiG-29A, it means that they would update the SPO-15 logic and functionality to other modules. This BECAUSE they said that when they do full fidelity module with SPO-15 then they will fix FC3 planes with it. 

 

So it might be worthwhile to do it, I'm guessing that the switches that control the SPO-10 are just relabelled for the SPO-15 but have exactly the same function, and then it's just adding the SPO-15 display on the frame of the front glass in the pilot's cockpit.

[fargo007]

This thing excels at throwing rox.

 

Now more than ever, the rockets in DCS at large need fragmentation damage added to the model.

 

 

[Northstar98]

23 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

This thing excels at throwing rox.

 

Now more than ever, the rockets in DCS at large need fragmentation damage added to the model.

 

We need fragmentation modelling, and improved warhead modelling (as well as improved damage modelling) full stop.

 

The issue is doing it without compromising performance further (I noticed the Hind is a bit more intensive).

[Lascar12F]

Don't know if this has been posted here before but here is a pic of what appears to be a standard none upgraded 24P with igla launchers mounted under the ATGM tip launcher.

 

This would be insane, and it makes me all tingly just thinking about it !

 

[IcedVenom]

6 hours ago, Lascar12F said:

Don't know if this has been posted here before but here is a pic of what appears to be a standard none upgraded 24P with igla launchers mounted under the ATGM tip launcher.

 

This would be insane, and it makes me all tingly just thinking about it !

 

Are you sure that's not someone's model aircraft?

 

Either way I'm pretty sure R-60M is better than Igla anyways.

[WinterH]

That photo has been discussed ad nauseum as far as I can recall it is an OPFOR bird used by US Army, and those are mounted by them, and aren't even missiles.

And yeah, we will get R-60Ms anyway, which I would overall prefer to Iglas. Especially Igla as it is in DCS right now. More often than not, MANPADS Igla misses a hovering and non-flaring helicopter right now

[jojo]

GUV pod & rocket pod

 

Hi,

 

I can shoot rocket pods, I can shoot GUV pods, but it seems I can't shoot rocket pods when GUV pods are loaded.

Is that normal and intended ?

 

Thanks.

[WinterH]

6 hours ago, jojo said:

GUV pod & rocket pod

 

Hi,

 

I can shoot rocket pods, I can shoot GUV pods, but it seems I can't shoot rocket pods when GUV pods are loaded.

Is that normal and intended ?

 

Thanks.

Is it fully normal or intended or not, can't say. But known issues already listed something like "combining multiple weapon types will confuse the system, use preset loadouts, note that is true for real aircraft too".

[fargo007]

Does anyone know which version(s) of the 9M120 ATAKA will be added to the Mi-24?

 

Thank you.

[WinterH]

Just now, fargo007 said:

Does anyone know which version(s) of the 9M120 ATAKA will be added to the Mi-24?

 

Thank you

It is listed somewhere either on product page or release notes, maybe both.

As far as I know, we'll get one tandem HEAT version, and one high explosive version, but not the later extended range ones. Which is ok really, because already Shturm's maximum range is at the edge of Raduga sight's usable distance in my opinion. That's just off the top of my head though, best check the Mi-24's product page

[Foma]

hello,  ... has any of the devs ever seen RL employment of for example S-5 or S-8 rockets ? S-5 tends to produce brownish smoke, while S-8 is basically thick 'black'. I do not know the chemistry there, maybe it is the same stuff, but more of it on S-8 ? I do not know. Also what I saw was never huge fiery large explosions from those rockets when landing yea, including S-8. Flashes, it depends when video was shot, if the sortie happened in the morning etc. White smoke from S-5/8 rockets is opposite of what it really looks like. And it is not 'sovershenno sekretno' dakjumenty. I probably havent seen whether the Sthurm system missile really does produce whitish smoke either RL.

 

I hope I'm not the only one to see the glaring mismatch.

[Rick50]

 

In a much earlier Hind thread (long before release) I brought up the subject of rocket smoke color. Turns out.... it seems to change visual color depending on available lighting: in highly sunny times it will look like black smoke, normal lighting, looks kinda grey, and in thick overcast can look like white smoke. 

[unipus]

"Suppressing" "insurgents" is a lot of fun in this. As many have said though, it falls way way short when there's no actual suppression. I'll accept it's realistic if my run with the GUV pods doesn't actually hit anyone. But it breaks my whole enthusiasm when that lone soldier stands still in the open field during and after, firing tracers (also a big ?) from his AK. Why can men in DCS not run for cover, or go prone, or crawl? This should be the easiest thing in the world.

(also, using the GUV pods in multiplayer is kind of a nightmare, don't do it!)

The rockets are lackluster in effect as well. Even a very simplified ground unit "damage model," the kind that's been used effectively in tabletop games for decades, would lead to satisfactory outcomes. As it is, it's direct hit or nothing with most rockets. The cannon, on the other hand, rips. (it also seems to lack HE effect, making it nearly useless against infantry, but other than that a decent momentary burst is guaranteed to put most light vehicles out of action. Maybe excessively so -- doesn't seem like Bushmasters and 30mm have this same capability against other vehicles whatsoever, normally.

Fixing this overall model needs to be a high priority. I'd be happy to donate the time to design a very simple skeleton system to do it, even! Then all the weapons and tactics can actually serve a purpose, rather than being a continual reminder of extreme shortcomings.

[71st_Mastiff]

is it me or is there a weight issue with weapons? mounted on the helo?

[Nealius]

On the subject of armament, are there known issues with the CCIP not functioning when using the rearm window? I'm finding that if I leave the payload as-is, the CCIP for rockets and guns works fine. But if I use the rearm menu to change my payload, the CCIP is caged in the center of the reticle for rockets. CCIP for the gun still works normally. This is with S-8KOM and S-8OFP, which should have CCIP cueing. 

Edited June 30, 2021 by Nealius

[fargo007]

11 hours ago, 71st_Mastiff said:

is it me or is there a weight issue with weapons? mounted on the helo?

 

Simply: Yes.  You need to check the MGTOW of the loadout you are putting on there. Four rocket pods, four Shturms and a full tank of gas will put you at 108% or so.  

 

In order to come down to 100% MGTOW, you will need to drop fuel to 50% with that loadout.  

 

You can still take off (e.g. rolling takeoff) and fly once you hit ETL, but at 108% you aren't going to be throwing her around like a go kart. 

 

This is also why people are complaining that they are out of right pedal authority when they pull power and it yaws left. 

 

You need not only enough torque to hold it straight, but in that situation you need enough to also overcome the existing yaw rate.  

 

At 108%, there's not enough torque remaining to do so.

[Eldur]

On 6/19/2021 at 10:44 AM, Fri13 said:

AFAIK the Mi-24V should be easy. Front cockpit layout to be redone from the front and left, add the rotating gunsight for operator and remove the 30 mm cannon externally, and slight modification to commander weapons panel to fire YakB in fixed position in case of emergency. 

 

I would pay extra 30€ for Mi-24V variant in 3 years from now.

 

I'd be happy to be able to do that as well by getting a Mi-24 upgrade pack that brings the V and maybe also the VP that has a GSh-23-2 turret. After shooting the 2A42 in VR I can only imagine this being a total blast. At least I will be able to do that in the Apache once it's there, but I'd love to have that feature in the Mi-24 as well. And TBH there's enough "soft" targets that we could engage well enough even with the YakB.