How Tough is the Hind Going to be?

[Hammer1-1]

Just to toss this one in there, heres a video if a Hind being shot down.

 

[Avimimus]

10 hours ago, Hammer1-1 said:

IRL - Mi8 took a missile hit from an Igla manpad and kept flying.

IDCS - Armored Mi8 can barely take 7.62 before being chopped up.

 

DCS kinda disappoints with its damage model/modelling, so dont expect TOO much.

 

 

Allegedly: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/168201/russian-mi_8-in-syria-survives-direct-manpads-hit.html

 

That said... one could lose a lot of the cargo bay and have holes in a variety of other places and still keep flying... so it isn't completely implausible.

 

[CrazyGman]

10 hours ago, Fri13 said:

This is why you don't do hovering attacks as you are too easy target, and why "pop-up slide" tactic is in use even for west, where Russia never thought about going for hovering attacks

Except they did

https://www.nva-flieger.de/index.php/theorie.html

 

Discribes using Mi-24D's and using the old 9M17 Phalanga

Edited May 24, 2021 by CrazyGman

[Fri13]

27 minutes ago, CrazyGman said:

Except they did

https://www.nva-flieger.de/index.php/theorie.html

 

Discribes using Mi-24D's and using the old 9M17 Phalanga

 

I know that, they can do it, but they don't tactics like west Germany with Bo 105 or other west countries got as is that you fly just NOE and sneak to the position, launch and sneak out.

That is the idea that Cobra and Apache was designed to be using.

 

The Russian doctrinal use even today is speed and mobility if following their lately years trainings. Not to go in hover and fly below trees to small pockets and come up.

 

There is that stupid myth always going that "Hind can't hover" because it is so rare to see it fighting from hover position in west Russia/East Europe.

 

[Apok]

11 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Show the hundreds of cases.

Here are few for starters...

Edited May 24, 2021 by Apok

[WinterH]

Is it out of the realm of possibility for a helicopter, or a Hind more specifically, to survive a MANPADS hit or proximity detonation (though I think most especially older MANPADS tend to have impact fuses only?) No, I do think it might be possible sometimes, but those would be more exception than rule. Yes, there are cases of them surviving RPG hits etc, but those weapons tend to be a lot more punctual, and focus their blast linearly forwards to go through armor, or if a blast/frag warhead instead they tend to be more for hurting personnel and soft materiel.

 

Anti air missiles tends to have warheads designed to cut through squishy but important bits on aircraft, as they can only be so though, and any helicopter inevitably have many of those like rotor blades, tail boom, tail rotor etc. Tail boom sliced through with a steel rod? Main rotor blade slightly bent by one? I don't fancy chances of the helicopter in that case.

 

My take is, it should be thougher than, say, a Huey, against light threats like rifle caliber or heavy machine gun rounds, and to some degree lower end of autocannon rounds. But I really don't think regularly tanking even the lightest of missiles or 30mm hits is a realistic expectation even if it was called "a flying tank". Those names are often just lore and legend, and at least somewhat exaggerated after all. I can totally see something like an A-10 or Su-25 merrily limping back home after a MANPADS hit yeah, but I can't see that being a commonplace occurrence for a helicopter.

[Northstar98]

18 hours ago, GGTharos said:

You found the one video where the heli doesn't go down after the MANPADS hit.  Everything else shows destruction - I'm not going to post a slew of such videos, but this is very easy to google.

 

Next step is to find some study showing heli survivability vs. missile hits IRL.

 

Not saying I disagree, but this highlights how important it is to have proper damage models.

 

And AFAIK this helicopter did actually crash following the hit, it just didn't happen straight away.

[Apok]

1 hour ago, Pikey said:

so... two. One of them is technically a miss.

Hyperbole redirects to this thread.

If proxy fuse went off its not a miss.

@Northstar98 If you get hit this bad you land asap. You dont gamble with your life by trying to limp back hoping your chopper dont fall apart. Unless your in DCS...

Edited May 24, 2021 by Apok

[blitzattack]

i think the real problems is: DCS ground AI have unreal accuracy

when you control a vehicle in CA,even your 20mm gun hit the heli,they don`t fall down at once,becuase you can`t keep hitting them in a short time

but AI can

so in the real world,MI24 or A10 have a good chance to survive the vehicle gun,because they can`t keep hitting you,they will hide,run,lose the target and so on.

They are human,they have limitations.

But in DCS so far,they don`t have things like that,AI is more likely a turrent with AESA and fire control computer.

That is sad,and before that change,helicopter in DCS have less chance to survive than the real world

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Apok said:

@Northstar98 If you get hit this bad you land asap. You dont gamble with your life by trying to limp back hoping your chopper dont fall apart. Unless your in DCS...

 

Wouldn't landing in hostile territory controlled by people who want to kill you, also be gambling your life? If you think you can limp back, wouldn't you try?

Edited May 24, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

37 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Wouldn't landing in hostile territory controlled by people who want to kill you, also be gambling your life? If you think you can limp back, wouldn't you try?

 

There are different actions to be taken depending situation.

 

1) Land immediately

2) Land as soon as possible

3) Land when proper

4) RTB

 

These can be found even on some NATOPS for the pilot to understand what the manual means on each error.

 

The most severe is "land immediately" that means "GET DOWN NOW!".

 

Second is like you can fly to own troops side for safety but then land.

 

And third is to land example on allies airfields or closest airbase possible.

 

And least one is that you abort mission and you fly properly back to base.

 

When you have other engine destroyed, people injured etc, you get immediately down. You will need to be alone sometime, but you can always surrender. It is better than die by trying to get 1 km further etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lurker]

58 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Wouldn't landing in hostile territory controlled by people who want to kill you, also be gambling your life? If you think you can limp back, wouldn't you try?

 

 

I'd say that facing a choice of:

 

A) Dying immediately if I don't try to ditch ASAP.

and

B) Maybe dying later, if I fall into the hands of the enemy

 

I think I'd choose A. Like, pretty much 100% of the time  You have to remember, a helicopter is not like a fixed wing aircraft. Unlike the airplane, it doesn't want to fly. It wants to fall out of the sky, and kill you. Always remember that. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Lurker

[CrazyGman]

6 hours ago, Fri13 said:

I know that, they can do it, but they don't tactics like west Germany with Bo 105 or other west countries got as is that you fly just NOE and sneak to the position, launch and sneak out.

That is the idea that Cobra and Apache was designed to be using.

 

The Russian doctrinal use even today is speed and mobility if following their lately years trainings. Not to go in hover and fly below trees to small pockets and come up.

 

There is that stupid myth always going that "Hind can't hover" because it is so rare to see it fighting from hover position in west Russia/East 

Actually the sneak out is what the manuver is showing in the picture, hence the loop around portion.

The reason you don't see Russian Hinds doing it in vids is the same reason you don't see Apaches and Cobras doing it in Afgahnistan and Iraq, it's an ambush tactic, and defensive tactic, not a CAS tactic. In the low intensity counter insurgency fight the philosophy is don't stop moving, there is no sneak and pop up, Apaches fly higher and fly patterns to prevent getting ambushed and stay out range of small arms. The pop up and scoot is mostly used against advancing armor in a defensive roll or to ambush a known target using anti-tank missiles. The Russians train for it just as NATO does, but both sides just never really had a call to use it in the current conflict setings. The Soviets and Americans never had advancing armor to stop in Afgahnistan.

Edited May 24, 2021 by CrazyGman

[FlankerKiller]

11 hours ago, Thump said:

 

*Stares in them releasing the Hind and then the Apache in the same kind of timeframe they released the Hornet and Viper.*

Yeah, I kinda feel the same. But they didnt release anything in 2020, so hopefully they've been working on these for awhile. I actually expect the Hind to be pretty well developed on release. It's the first release since the Viper fiasco. But I suspect the Apache is gonna be rough. 

[sublime]

16 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

Yeah, I kinda feel the same. But they didnt release anything in 2020, so hopefully they've been working on these for awhile. I actually expect the Hind to be pretty well developed on release. It's the first release since the Viper fiasco. But I suspect the Apache is gonna be rough. 

I agree. Don't know what it is exactly but I have a firm feeling this will be a pretty solid release and module. It also doesn't hurt that the mi24 is one of the darlings of Russian mil aviation enthusiasts.  I think with some legendary planes there's a real desire to do them justice. Like the F14. I feel our Russian friends won't disappoint on this module

3 hours ago, blitzattack said:

i think the real problems is: DCS ground AI have unreal accuracy

when you control a vehicle in CA,even your 20mm gun hit the heli,they don`t fall down at once,becuase you can`t keep hitting them in a short time

but AI can

so in the real world,MI24 or A10 have a good chance to survive the vehicle gun,because they can`t keep hitting you,they will hide,run,lose the target and so on.

They are human,they have limitations.

But in DCS so far,they don`t have things like that,AI is more likely a turrent with AESA and fire control computer.

That is sad,and before that change,helicopter in DCS have less chance to survive than the real world

I think you're spot on. The biggest problem in this by far and also perhaps major problem for the hind to be flown in realistic scenarios is the AIs machine like accuracy

[FlankerKiller]

Just now, sublime said:

I agree. Don't know what it is exactly but I have a firm feeling this will be a pretty solid release and module. It also doesn't hurt that the mi24 is one of the darlings of Russian mil aviation enthusiasts.  I think with some legendary planes there's a real desire to do them justice. Like the F14. I feel our Russian friends won't disappoint on this module

Agreed, for me it's the fact that they haven't just pushed it out. But the Apache is going to generate so much profit that I believe they will be pushed to rush it. My theory sounds underhanded, but I believe they're going to put out a polished Hind, so people will buy the rougher Apache. Now that being said they will get that Apache up to speed. 

[Frag]

21 minutes ago, FlankerKiller said:

Yeah, I kinda feel the same. But they didnt release anything in 2020, so hopefully they've been working on these for awhile. I actually expect the Hind to be pretty well developed on release. It's the first release since the Viper fiasco. But I suspect the Apache is gonna be rough. 

 

I guess that the fact that the Hind is an older platform with less technological toy is probably making it shorter to implement. But indeed the Apache is a complete other story!

[Fri13]

41 minutes ago, CrazyGman said:

Actually the sneak out is what the manuver is showing in the picture, hence the loop around portion.

 

Yes, as I said, I know that. 

 

41 minutes ago, CrazyGman said:

The reason you don't see Russian Hinds doing it in vids is the same reason you don't see Apaches and Cobras doing it in Afgahnistan and Iraq, it's an ambush tactic, and defensive tactic, not a CAS tactic.

 

You do know that Russia holds periodically massive military exercises? They don't really train those things there. They invite even foreign observers in them to show their forces. neighborhood countries makes own analysis from their forces etc and use them to make their own doctrines as well. There is plenty of information that what are the Russian doctrinal use of the helicopter forces as it has been shown in their training against all kind possible enemies.

 

41 minutes ago, CrazyGman said:

In the low intensity counter insurgency fight the philosophy is don't stop moving, there is no sneak and pop up, Apaches fly higher and fly patterns to prevent getting ambushed and stay out range of small arms.

 

Just the opposite. In the AirLand doctrine that was developed in the cold war era it is about utilizing helicopters for massive attacks behind the enemy lines. You don't stop there. You keep moving when attacking the enemy second wave units that are waiting the spearhead units to open the hole for the enemy defense that second wave will then push through. That is where the Mi-8 and MI-24 were designed to perform very well, fast route around the enemy front line or even through it, then deploy troops on enemy backdoor and engage there. And slip out then quickly. 

The Apache pilots doesn't even anymore know how to do a low level, pop-up attacks or high speed engagements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-AzSGRAza4) as it is not their use anymore. Russians know, but they utilize even in the europe the low level and high speeds even when performing defensive tactics.

 

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, 26-J39 said:

 

Yeah your right, and those squishy bits are the pilot.   Some missiles are designed to "disable" the pilot.   

 

The old ones had just the heading to the hottest part and explode there. Like example here what you can hear about AIM-4 Falcon bein superior to AIM-9 because it was so accurate.

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/episodes/106-f-106-delta-dart/ 

 

The same case was with the old MANPADS. You just had missile that went to tailpipe and blowed up there. 

Then in the more modern missiles like Igla, you had logic that missile will in the final moment lead forward toward the center of the mass instead tail pipe.

This so that the fragmentation pattern strikes to the frontal section as well where the airflow will disturb the plane and it will destroy it itself by its speed etc. 

 

The helicopters problem is that if you lose one main rotor blade, the flight is over. You have massive gyroscope above your head that is now destroying itself to pieces because unbalance.

You lose the tail and flight is over as well. That thing is in Mi-24 basically just a hollow thin tail where inside of it there are few cables, wires and just a anti-torque axel. So ripping part of that skin open and it will not support its weight and forces and it will tear it itself up. 

 

And the hottest part is just behind the exhaust, blowing all the hot air around that tail.

There is a lot of documented events even just from Afghanistan where missile hit but it just made helicopter to smoke by losing one engine or something and disappeared. No wreckage but still counted as a "kill" as every hit was counted as a kill.

 

For long time the pilot was in the safest place. As in fighters if you lost the tail section controls or engine, you still managed to at least eject. 

But now when the missiles are designed to fly front of you and explode there so you are flying to the fan of fragmentation, you likely die right there.

These days the primary method is the proximity fuze. One of the most guarded secrets at the WW2 era. The backup method is the old impact fuze so if you happen to hit the target that you get it go off. But it is better to have fragmentation spread to large area and hit the vehicle to all over its places as you have nicer change to cause massive damage than hitting something soft and go through or explode in small contained area. The difference is like trying to hit something with a single bullet from rifle, and shooting with a shotgun with dozens of pellets spread on the target area. 

 

 

[26-J39]

From the report GG posted:

 

"Mujahideen fired MANPADS achieved a 70 percent kill probability against helicopters and aircraft during the Soviet–Afghan war.99"

 

So there you go, to answer the OP, the Hind is about 30% tough

[tusler]

I hope it is alot better than the MI-8, it seems like once I get around ground forces a bb gun can one shot the thing out of the sky LoL.

[Thump]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

It should be, based to the interview it is almost completely done. Like when major missing features are a R-60M missiles etc, that likely is waiting the new FLIR system to be implemented first for DCS (for heat maps and all) then it is very good condition. 

 

 

Why people say that F-16 was a fiasco or terrible? It was release to Open Beta, it was Early Access etc. It is suppose to be very rough and buggy etc and get fixes in coming years.

It is problem that people are having expectations that Early Access and Open Beta are suppose to be anywhere near enjoyable experience for entertainment. Those should be the periods for the "Rivet Counters" and those who are interested to find bugs and problems and helps the developers to solve them, search more information how the systems should be implemented and how things should work. 

 

F-16 did extremely well at the begin, even when it had some problems like fuel consumption was 1/10th of the suppose to be, the plane damage modeling was not working for multiplayer etc. Even today it has still lots of missing main features etc but it is part of the Early Access etc.

 

Polychop is going to skip the Early Access phase with the Kiowa Warrior, or at least try to. It still doesn't mean that it will not be first in Open Beta only. The Hind likely could be as well straight to Open Beta without Early Access, but have only Early Purchase option.

 

The problem is that people are having wrong expectations from the Early Access because it is marketed so heavily as only way to play DCS World. 

 

 

 

They released the Viper in pre-alpha form into a beta (Early Access does not mean Early Alpha).  They said it wouldn't take resources away from the Hornet when everyone was expressing concern that it would, it did.  To pretend that it was a great release is a disservice to the lessons (that hopefully should have been) learned.  The A-10CII released at 95% completion and we're still waiting on the ARC 210.  How long do you think it will take them to get R-60M into the game for the Hind?  It's not a problem with perception of EA, it's a problem of watching a company with limited resources take on additional projects simultaneously when others are still under development.  I get the need to bring in money and EA is how they do it, but you can see how this is a problem in the long term that results in quite extended stays for an individual module in EA.

Edited May 24, 2021 by Thump

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, blitzattack said:

But in DCS so far,they don`t have things like that,AI is more likely a turrent with AESA and fire control computer.

That is sad,and before that change,helicopter in DCS have less chance to survive than the real world

 

 

 

 

There should be multiple different engagement tactics for the anti-air gunners, but in DCS they are using just one and it is the lead. This gives full control of the target to avoid getting shot down by just predicting to be shot at from its current vector and speed, and change it constantly slightly and the AAA will miss you because on the moment the bullet left the barrel, target is already heading to different position. So player can just be jinxing as wanted to avoid being shot and as player has full control of timing then it is easy to perform the last maneuver so weapon can be released on the target. 

At closer ranges it becomes more challenging because bullets becomes so fast that you have less time and space to change vector but it still works. 

 

If we would get example a barrage mode, the AI would be shooting front of the target in plausible position. Not to really try to hit the target but force pilot to start looking the tracers and start to maneuver so it isn't flown in the stream of shells. Just jinxing around randomly doesn't anymore work as you have high risk to fly in to them. And no player has the stress to look where shells are flying and then need to fly between the streams, and this shrinks the opportunity window to attack successfully as avoiding getting shot down, trying to keep eye on the target (or even spot it) and then try to get release done properly and changes are a lot smaller.

 

Right now the AI is idiotic with a simple random error for the aiming. That causes that AI will shoot even behind the target. Like, what kind a idiot the gunner needs to be to aim 5 degree behind the target in first place?

And difference is basically this:

 

 

Instead firing by knowing that flying target will not reverse its direction, you aim all to front of it randomly. There is a better change to hit it as now jinxing pre-maneuvering does more harm than good. 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Fri13

[Fri13]

33 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Last thing I want or need is my head cut off by a dull and rusty machete. Im good; Ill take my chances with the hit and hope to god I make it back to friendly areas.

 

So you have fire inside the cockpit, you can't see much because smoke, fragmented windshields, wounded and dead crew members screaming and transported people, your other engine is out, your aircraft keeps terrible noises and warning lights panel is like a Christmas tree, and you think that you would have better to fly 10-20 km to friendly areas?

 

Have you thought that not every single enemy out there isn't a extremists believers who want to make YouTube videos by executing people?

 

WORDING
The concept of word usage and intended meaning adhered to in preparing this manual is as follows:
1. “Shall” has been used only when application of a procedure is mandatory.
2. “Should” has been used only when application of a procedure is recommended.
3. “May” and “need not” have been used only when application of a procedure is optional.
4. “Will” has been used only to indicate futurity, never to indicate any degree of requirement for application of
a procedure.
5. Land immediately is self-explanatory.
6. Land as soon as possible means land at the first site at which a safe landing can be made.
7. Land as soon as practical means extended flight is not recommended. The landing and duration of flight is at
the discretion of the pilot in command.

 

 

[NineLine]

I tired to clean this thread, but you guys are all over the board. The answer to the question is, depends on what situation you put the Hind in. We can discuss again when it releases if its determined to be an issue. Thanks