Jump to content

Avimimus

Members
  • Content Count

    969
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Avimimus

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. At least I'm happy to hear that rockets are likely in any case. It is nice to have them as an option.
  2. H-6 would be pretty neat (especially if an earlier Russian variant could be developed out of it for the European theatre). Su-30MKK would also be a pretty lovely. I like multi-role/ground-attack... even if it is FC3 level.
  3. Well... wouldn't it be more like flying with a crew of two (200kg) and no Shturm.... so the tally is 1956kg with 1244kg left for fuel (about 2/3rds capacity)... so twice as much fuel as you estimated... much more feasible. If they are UB32 pods... then the rocket weight is more like 161kg per pod so the tally drops further to 1566kg, so 1634kg of fuel... As for the idea of a helicopter landing without any allied troops to protect it and then having crew dismount to self-reload... well... that is pretty 'gutsy'... I can't ever see it being a standard operating procedure
  4. Thanks! They did make a comment about not bothering with 'exotic' loadouts that were only ever used in Afghanistan or Syria. (That said in my mind - those were major combat uses along with Chechnya... so aren't these loadouts actually more representative of service loadouts?) Also - didn't you say that it was the same MDB racks used on the Su-25? So technically... the components for the FAB-100 loadout are already modelled in the game Anyway, thanks again - your contributions are always interesting.
  5. The R-60 is so light though... it makes it rather hard to replace entirely! I can see why some remained in use. I also understand the idea of always carrying at least a pair of Shturm per hardpoint... given that it is usually good to have at least four rounds available I can see why it doesn't matter as much. It would definitely be worth the added programming effort to provide options to carry two or four Vikhr per hardpoint on the Su-25T and Ka-50 though... one really doesn't need the weight and drag of 12-16 missiles in a lot of situations! So I hope they consider that.
  6. There are photos that seem to show a Ka-52 with 24 Vikhr - I have my doubts though (excellent photoshop maybe??). It is definitely confirmed that some Ka-52 can carry missiles on the inner pylons as well... although that is most often used for the new heavier anti-tank missiles... so the total maximum missile load ends up being 16 missiles in that case. Particularly the Hermes-A. It is interesting that the Ka-52 has also been spotted with 9M123VM Khrizantema, 9K121 Vikhr and 9M120 Ataka... so that is at least four different anti-tank missiles systems.
  7. Yeah... that was what I was thinking... that the Mi-24P was first discussed (with cockpit screenshots) much earlier... thought it was more like 2013 not 2008 though!
  8. One thing I would be interested in is a ground unit (and maybe even some AI aircraft) set in the year 2000 if the Cold War had continued... so Objekt 195, 2S35, German 'Giraffe tank' SAM batteries, ADATs... It'd be really interesting and enough specs are known for a lot of these to exist as AI ground units.
  9. Hmm... I'm not sure if that equation covers it. If one looks at the manuals there are also '50% kill' zones and 'unsafe zones' where there is a lower probability of being killed. The fact is that fragments spread out into an ever increasing volume of space and gaps begin to form between the fragments. There are usually a few large fragments that are lethal at a much larger distance but at those distances the probability of being missed entirely is higher. This is especially true if one is thinking about 'soft' vehicles with a low probability of unusually large or high-energy fragme
  10. I do hope that we'll at least get options to load only 4 or 8 Vikhr missiles (as they already have art done for that, and it isn't exactly treading on a classified system to simply allow removing a few tubes from the existing hard-point). Beyond that - I really would be content if not getting our dreams fulfilled is the price paid to avoid risking prison time for the devs Best to keep them secure and happy. P.S. This also means that a later Mi-8 or Mi-28 is impossible. But I suppose the Mil Mi-2 is declassified? That'd be the next logical Soviet helicopter project. It
  11. For me this is truly the most exciting aircraft being worked on (other than the Mi-24 Krokodil... with IA-58 Pucará as a runner up). I hope your model is well backed up... and I hope that ED decides to incorporate the 3d model and/or you find a team of programmers to turn it into a complete model. In any case, I'm greatly enjoying your work. It is nice to watch.
  12. With regard to guided munitions (Mainly laser-guided bombs and AGM-65 Mavericks): "If key allies—notably Britain, France, and Germany—were committed to the operation, allied inventories might be adequate against attacks of up to six divisions. Against nine to twelve division assaults, however—or under circumstances in which the better-armed allies do not play major roles—the European arsenal is likely to prove inadequate. (In 1990, Iraq attacked Kuwait with 11 divisions.)" From Page 88: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1245/MR1245.ch4.pdf
  13. Well... Europe was originally supposed to have 765 of them in service by ~2005-2010... producing enough guided munitions for all of them to use on all targets would add to the price. There is also the fact that we're currently spending 20-200 times the price of the target on each guided weapon... which works when you aren't dropping that many bombs, but fighting a serious war you'd want to find cheaper ways to destroy trucks... of course, in a series war with the Warsaw Pact that was envisioned the NATO air-forces probably would cease to functionally exist in Europe within the firs
  14. The bombing of Kosovo and the invasion of Afghanistan unguided bombs were dropped in much greater numbers than guided bombs (with the exception of some countries, in Kosovo I believe the vast majority of bombs dropped by Canada were guided). Since then guided bombs have been more important than unguided weapons (and more important than missiles). So I'd suspect that unguided weapons would have been pretty standard up until the 1999-2001 period. Stocks of guided weapons would be limited and a capability to use unguided weapons would be quite desirable for conserving guided munitions
  15. Apparently The ability to use iron bombs, or even the gun, isn't cleared on a lot of production models (yet anyway). Hence my "What if the Soviet Union still existed in 1999?" question... "Is it fair to say that CRV-7 and BL-755 integration would've taken place as a stopgap?"
×
×
  • Create New...