ATGM Loft mode

[AeriaGloria]

   Seeing the Apache have a LOAL Hi and LOAL lo selectable by pilot, I realized same could be possible in Mi-24P 

  I think this would be a very useful feature that would impress many people about Petrovich. As it says in the export Mi-35P manual, that at ranges from 2-3.5 km, the operator can have the sight 2-3 mils over the target for 2-3 seconds after launch to reduce smoke. And at ranges greater then 3.5 km, that time after launch of holding the aimable mark above the target can be increased to 4-5 seconds. After the allotted time, to gently move mark down to target. 
 

   This could be called and activated same as LOAL Low, but of course something more Mi-24 specific like loft low. And a selectable higher loft angle, where the same time limit compared to range is observed, with the +/-300m error Petro already has, with the only difference being that Petro would hold the marker more then 2-3 mils above target. Which would be useful for areas with lots of clutter or armor where top attack is better, as long as Pilot is aware that loft attack would means longer TOF, and thus at very large ranges could be the difference that makes the missile fly longer then it’s 18 second thermal battery allows.  
 

  Just a suggestion, as it’s clearly done in real life to avoid smoke in the sight, possible with multi crew alreasy. And the functionality to both display and select it is already implemented in the Apache. 
 

Please comment if you would also like this feature, and give us more options to customize our ATGM attack for best situation. Currently, the only way I have found to manually make Petro loft is either target something farther away first for a few seconds, or the easier way of just rapidly climbing after launch, forcing the LOS so rise and increase the angle, making the missile climb and then dive on target at a greater angle. Thank you 

[rcjonessnp175]

Totally,, will help in engaging armor that properly uses defilade,  Top attack is a thing and hope we get it eventually 

[Hobel]

That's a great suggestion and would make Petro even more attractive.

Because what you propose is already possible just not with the AI

[WinterH]

Yep, this could also enable Petro to attack from hover when the conditions allow (light helo, not hot and high environment) and situation calls for. Currently only doable as a human in the gunner seat. AFAIK this is practiced IRL by skilled Hind crews too.

[admiki]

Loft for hover attacks sounds nice, but for top on attack, how do you know when to start bringing sight on target ?

[Sealpup]

   Sadly the weapons used aren't capable of this. The Ataka is either SACLOS or an RF beam-rider, depending on the fire-control system used. And Shturm is a straight SACLOS weapon. These weapons are only capable of staying more or less in the sight picture all the way to target. And before anyone mentions it, yes, Ataka CAN float high in the sight picture for the first bit of launch before drifting down into the center before impact. However this requires an FCS with rangefinding capability, and its only a few meters of pop-up for the purposes of avoiding bushes and trees on the way to target.

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, Sealpup said:

   Sadly the weapons used aren't capable of this. The Ataka is either SACLOS or an RF beam-rider, depending on the fire-control system used. And Shturm is a straight SACLOS weapon. These weapons are only capable of staying more or less in the sight picture all the way to target. And before anyone mentions it, yes, Ataka CAN float high in the sight picture for the first bit of launch before drifting down into the center before impact. However this requires an FCS with rangefinding capability, and its only a few meters of pop-up for the purposes of avoiding bushes and trees on the way to target.

I only meant the way it is described in the manual, not an actual top attack on the target, but the CPG manually raising the sight above the target for a certain time based on estimated distance. As the manual says, when the CPG can tell the target is about 2-3.5 km away they can raise the sight Above the target for 2-3 seconds, leaving plenty of time left of missile TOD for sight to be ln target for missile to correctly hit. And at ranges greater then3.5 km estimated, the sight can be raised for 4-5 seconds after launch, still leaving plenty of time in missile TOF for sight on target for it to hit.
 

Yes it wouldn’t hit from the top, insinuating top attack probably wasn’t being very clear from me, but it would help clear obstacles or avoid the ground as it gains speed

This is already possible with a human CPG (no laser range finding), and is done in real life to avoid smoke in the sight, which is the reason it is described in the manual 

[rcjonessnp175]

Well either way making Petro more human like with Gunnery maneuver's so to speak would be ideal.  

[fargo007]

If the smoke doesn't bother petrovich (it does not), and you're not flying with an operator, I don't see this as actually adding any capability.

IOW - you wouldn't even be able to tell that this actually occurred.

Which begs the questions of when you would need to use this, and why?

There are much bigger fish to fry IMO.

Edited April 19, 2022 by fargo007

[Hobel]

2 hours ago, fargo007 said:

f the smoke doesn't bother petrovich (it does not), and you're not flying with an operator, I don't see this as actually adding any capability.

IOW - you wouldn't even be able to tell that this actually occurred.

Which begs the questions of when you would need to use this, and why?

There are much bigger fish to fry IMO.

I hover flight would be very useful so that you can do that with Petro https://streamable.com/zgy1wi

[AeriaGloria]

3 hours ago, fargo007 said:

If the smoke doesn't bother petrovich (it does not), and you're not flying with an operator, I don't see this as actually adding any capability.

IOW - you wouldn't even be able to tell that this actually occurred.

Which begs the questions of when you would need to use this, and why?

There are much bigger fish to fry IMO.

 

Yes, I can certianly understand this point of view 

[yuck32]

+1

[fargo007]

7 hours ago, Hobel said:

I hover flight would be very useful so that you can do that with Petro https://streamable.com/zgy1wi

I guess, but this helicopter isn't meant to attack from hover like this. Against hard armor targets, most of which have guided rockets like the AT-6, Svir, etc. you'll just die.

OTOH, I think they could be a little less strict with the match/lineup than they are. 

It's likely typical that the operator will slew up to "chase" launch authority (I do that), and then slew back to target once it's off the rails. Being a little more flexible with that lineup precision might be some good (and realistic) middle ground here.

Edited April 20, 2022 by fargo007

[Hobel]

it doesn't matter if it's "not designed for it", I mean this practice is apparently even mentioned in a manual.

And as an example, just look at the latest conflicts, nothing is done differently than to use vehicles for what "it was not meant for".

[fargo007]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

it doesn't matter if it's "not designed for it", I mean this practice is apparently even mentioned in a manual.

And as an example, just look at the latest conflicts, nothing is done differently than to use vehicles for what "it was not meant for".

Lots of things are mentioned in manuals that are just not put into practice because they make no operational sense.

I can't find even a single example of an Mi-24 in a hover, engaging targets with missiles in an actual combat environment.

Aside of this being a fringe use case compared to the issues that still need to be developed and fixed.

[rcjonessnp175]

I say it makes operational sense, for example look at all the vehicle Fighting positions in Syria map,  in Apache I constantly use hi profile for hellfire in order to top attack.  Real world I imagine in Hind it be same sort of thing and from what has been said about techniques in a manual it sounds legit.  Now I do think it may be a coding issue but doesn’t George do Hi profile with a hellfire?

[Hobel]

13 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

I can't find even a single example of an Mi-24 in a hover, engaging targets with missiles in an actual combat environment.

it should not be the rule with the Mi24 but if the situation allows it I think it will also be shot from the hover (there is also training video about it)

48 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

 no operational sense.

And why do other helicopters do it then?

[fargo007]

1 minute ago, Hobel said:

it should not be the rule with the Mi24 but if the situation allows it I think it will also be shot from the hover (there is also training video about it)

And why do other helicopters do it then?

Hmm...  Maybe because they're designed to do so, and it's part of the training pipeline for those pilots? 

Expecting that you are going to fight in the exact same way in the Mi-24 as you would in the KA-50, AH-64, BO-105, or SA-342 is a mistake. 

The tactics employed need to follow the strengths the aircraft has. Shooting ATGMs from a hover is just NOT a 'strength' of the Mi-24. 

The fact that people are complaining that it's difficult to do so is pretty compelling evidence of that.

[Hobel]

29 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

The tactics employed need to follow the strengths the aircraft has. Shooting ATGMs from a hover is just NOT a 'strength' of the Mi-24. 

 

34 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

Expecting that you are going to fight in the exact same way in the Mi-24 as you would in the KA-50, AH-64, BO-105, or SA-342 is a mistake. 

I also did not say that it is the strength only that it is possible.

 

38 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

The fact that people are complaining that it's difficult to do so is pretty compelling evidence of that.

everyone as he can

[AeriaGloria]

2 hours ago, fargo007 said:

Lots of things are mentioned in manuals that are just not put into practice because they make no operational sense.

I can't find even a single example of an Mi-24 in a hover, engaging targets with missiles in an actual combat environment.

Aside of this being a fringe use case compared to the issues that still need to be developed and fixed.

It is not only mentioned in the manuals, it was part of East German tactics that were practiced and would’ve been used in war. They say specifically the idea was to use hovering attacks as a means of defending a specific area, you can read about it here https://www.nva-flieger.de/index.php/taktik/arfk/angriffsverfahren-gefechtsordnung.html

I also like the idea of being looser with launch restrictions as long as range allows it. However. There is a very much real world reason for the launch restriction, or Atleast a certain way it would be done to be realistic. In DCS we do not have any need to keep missile in main lobe of radio transmitter and periscope view in order to transmit/receive commands. However in real life, you are not even supposed to start turning away from target until 2 seconds after launch! So really only if Petro could tell range was grater then 1.5-2 km, would it make sense/be realistic to have the “launch restrictions” relaxed, and the missile would still need to travel roughly along boresight for up to 2 seconds before being commanded on target, if we are going to follow how it would need to be done in real life, same as this “raised sight” profile mentioning a minimum of 2-3 seconds for the sight to be raised above target before going on target. 

Edited April 20, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[fargo007]

32 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

It is not only mentioned in the manuals, it was part of East German tactics that were practiced and would’ve been used in war. They say specifically the idea was to use hovering attacks as a means of defending a specific area, you can read about it here https://www.nva-flieger.de/index.php/taktik/arfk/angriffsverfahren-gefechtsordnung.html

I also like the idea of being looser with launch restrictions as long as range allows it. However. There is a very much real world reason for the launch restriction, or Atleast a certain way it would be done to be realistic. In DCS we do not have any need to keep missile in main lobe of radio transmitter and periscope view in order to transmit/receive commands. However in real life, you are not even supposed to start turning away from target until 2 seconds after launch! So really only if Petro could tell range was grater then 1.5-2 km, would it make sense/be realistic to have the “launch restrictions” relaxed, and the missile would still need to travel roughly along boresight for up to 2 seconds before being commanded on target, if we are going to follow how it would need to be done in real life, same as this “raised sight” profile mentioning a minimum of 2-3 seconds for the sight to be raised above target before going on target. 

 

I highly doubt the assertion that just because it's in the manual as a possible tactic, that it means it would be used in combat.

I've asked, and nobody can furnish an example of an Mi-24 engaging targets this way in a combat environment. If this was anything close to a useful combat tactic we'd see it. It's just not a thing that's done. 

The disadvantages laid out in the manual you linked to are clearly why. I think it bears out in DCS as well, as doing this against even 1990's class armor opponents, who have guided weapons very near to the max range of the Shturm and Ataka is probably the fastest way to get killed in an Mi-24 other than crashing.

Either way, this is a far out edge case. Clearly not the best use of developer time against the backlog of reported issues and yet to be implemented features.

Thanks for the discussion, but I see this as too far from practical reality to justify the use of resources.

[admiki]

3 hours ago, rcjonessnp175 said:

I say it makes operational sense, for example look at all the vehicle Fighting positions in Syria map,  in Apache I constantly use hi profile for hellfire in order to top attack.  Real world I imagine in Hind it be same sort of thing and from what has been said about techniques in a manual it sounds legit.  Now I do think it may be a coding issue but doesn’t George do Hi profile with a hellfire?

I can't wait to hear how you would do top attack with ATGM. And please, no "I would keep sight above target and then guide it down", I want to hear how you would decide when it is time to guide missile down for top attack, considering that it rides the beam and not tracking on reflection like Hellfire does.

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, fargo007 said:

I highly doubt the assertion that just because it's in the manual as a possible tactic, that it means it would be used in combat.

I've asked, and nobody can furnish an example of an Mi-24 engaging targets this way in a combat environment. If this was anything close to a useful combat tactic we'd see it. It's just not a thing that's done. 

The disadvantages laid out in the manual you linked to are clearly why. I think it bears out in DCS as well, as doing this against even 1990's class armor opponents, who have guided weapons very near to the max range of the Shturm and Ataka is probably the fastest way to get killed in an Mi-24 other than crashing.

Either way, this is a far out edge case. Clearly not the best use of developer time against the backlog of reported issues and yet to be implemented features.

Thanks for the discussion, but I see this as too far from practical reality to justify the use of resources.

I mostly agree that it may be out of the realm of the simulation. But is the fact that the East Germans wrote about it in tactical practices and used it as one of several types of engagements for their Mi-24 units not evidence enough? I supplied a link with the description of their tactics for Mi-24 units, and here is a picture from it. The idea was even if not precisely hovering, the forward movement was very small. And they describe the reasoning being the surprise/ambush static units or defend a point. You only need to run it through Google translate or use Google chrome to translate the whole page In real time. 
 

While I never attack in such a way, and think it is mostly impractical, I do think this is certainly evidence the East German army was prepared to use it in case of a Cold War gone hot in the 1980s. An era with very few Tank launched ATGMs to deal with. 

[fargo007]

You can show they wrote about it, but you have not shown that it has been used, ever.

East Germany certainly wouldn't be who I would pick as an example to follow.

Edited April 20, 2022 by fargo007

[rcjonessnp175]

9 minutes ago, fargo007 said:

You can show they wrote about it, but you have not shown that it has been used, ever.

Lots of folks train to use certain techniques and never are given the chance to use them in anger.  I would wager that if a former mi24 pilot was interviewed and was cleared to say so,  many tricks of the trade would be exposed.  Stuff doesn't get into a manual because its absolute non sense,  its in a manual for a reason,  its long vetting processes.  But any ways

Edited April 20, 2022 by rcjonessnp175