What does the guy up front do?

Google Translate

Read it here:

 

http://old.redstar.ru/2005/07/16_07/2_02.html

 

Last part, maybe is a problem of the translation and I understood it not properly?

 

And the Mi-24M is capable of maintaining such a speed with eight paratroopers on board, which it can disembark or pick up at altitudes up to 4,000 m.

Well, this is just a journalist's reasoning about the hypothetical capabilities of the Mi-24, and without taking into account other factors… therefore, this is nothing more than his reasoning, and not at all a systematic phenomenon. :)

@S.E.Bulba: Thank you for all the interesting insights!

Not at all! :happy:

He pours the coffee

Interesting conflicts in the information:

But, in fact, it never came to the combat use of these helicopters. Together with a pair of Ka-50s, an order came: to carry out all flights of the Black Shark only under the cover of the Mi-24, in addition, not to use the Ka-50 in the mountains, at night and in adverse weather conditions. During the day on the plain then there was no one to fight with. When he reported this to the commander of the UGV (s), Colonel-General Baranov, he answered: why are they needed here then? Send them back. As a result, "Sharks" flew only over the plain, and under the cover of a pair of Mi-24s. Whom did they destroy there? To be honest, then no one. They shoot in the forests, where, let's say, there could be militants, and fly back. Naturally, no one fired at the Ka-50 either.

Versus

The BUG personnel consisted of eight pilots and co-pilots, 26 technicians from the 344 Training Center, two experts from the Army Aviation Command and nine Kamov representatives.

...

The first reconnaissance sorties with the KA-50s were carried out on 1st January 2001, and after 6th January combat missions started. Sorties were performed in groups, with two KA-50s being accompanied by either a Mi-24 or a KA-29. Among typical targets were parking sites, rebel camps and groups, ammunition depots, field fortifications, shelters, trenches, etc. Most targets were placed on hard-to-reach mountain areas, on slopes, in gorges and tops of mountains at elevations around 1500m.

...

In these conditions the helicopter coaxial configuration revealed its well-known advantages. After the first combat sortie, the group's chief pilot, Col, R. said "Flights in the mountains should be performed only by this helicopter". In particular, the absence of tail rotor made it easier to retain control of the aircraft in the presence of side gusts and other atmospheric disturbances, which are often originated when sunny side of mountain gorge is heated intensively while the opposite side remains in shadows.

Side gusts caused a number of flight accidents with Mi-8s and Mi-24s.

Furthermore, the KA-50's advantageous performance in terms of high maneuverability and rate of climb became evident.

And then:

Naturally, no one fired at the Ka-50 either. But they themselves often broke. In one of the flights of one Ka-50, the tip of the blade of one of the propellers collapsed, and fragments hit the engine. As a result, this helicopter stood for three weeks, waiting for a new engine, so that the entire period of the BEG's stay in Chechnya - a month and a half - flew only one Ka-50

Versus

But of course, there also were problems. On 16 January 2001, the No 25 was performing a low-altitude attack with unguided rockets when pilot Lt.Col. E. felt an abnormal vibration and decided to land at Hankala airfield. A ground inspection revealed a blade tip damage. The damaged part was cut off and the helicopter flew over to its base - and the three weeks it had to wait for a spare blade set. Due to this incident, the Combat Attack Group for a while carried out its missions at a reduced strength of one KA-50 and the KA-29 designator.

Read it here:

 

http://old.redstar.ru/2005/07/16_07/2_02.html

 

Last part, maybe is a problem of the translation and I understood it not properly?

 

And the Mi-24M is capable of maintaining such a speed with eight paratroopers on board, which it can disembark or pick up at altitudes up to 4,000 m.

The Raduga-F is a FLIR system, as far as I've seen, with the "orange" thermal color as seen in games like ArmA.

 

 

See this timestamp:

That video is about bad color information from old film, shot through either a real sight with limited contrast or faked one with overlay of sight reticle and to illustrate sight.

Many does mention about FLIR but I am skeptical depending the year. It can very well be just a night vision for low light scenarios like at the seas where you get to make out silhouette of a night scene if required, and find ships/shore lights.

Google Translate

Interesting conflicts in the information:

 

 

 

Versus

 

 

 

And then:

 

 

Versus

One should not so naively believe everything that is written in the press… especially in the Russian one. :)

Aren't you surprised that on all combat flights during the Ka-50 mission to Chechnya, there is practically no information about the number of destroyed enemy forces? How many militants were destroyed, as well as their equipment, camps and warehouses with weapons, etc.? Believe me, in most cases such data are taken into account with special care, and as a rule, they are widely covered in the media on a slightly increased scale, as victories of the Russian army. In the case of the Ka-50, we do not see anything at all… just general phrases (and only an accurate account of the spent ammunition is given, as at the firing ground), which should give rise to thought. :)

Interesting discussion. From everything I've been able to find, the Pilot Operator is very weapons oriented, but can fly the helicopter using fold out controls. Seems in the MI 24V the front seat has the AT 2 Missile controls, the bomb sight, and that seems about it aside from some flight instrumentation.

Even though the front cockpit is obviously more sparse than the rear seat, I'm still very excited for multicrew. I've logged a lot of time in DCS multicrew, starting out in the L-39, then the SA342 (back when it actually had functional multicrew...) And of course more recently the F-14, where I flew almost exclusively as a RIO during my squadrons F-14 mission series that lasted about 8-9 months. After all that time I've found that all of the DCS Multicrew aircraft, even something as simple as the L-39ZA, can greatly benefit from multicrew if the crew utilizes it correctly. Crew Resource Management is a deep topic, and there are endless ways to draw on that concept within DCS. Sure, there are times where the crew won't be busy, but finding work and diving up crew workload is part of the challenge and the fun.

I'm sure the front seat will have a lot to do, if the Hind crew works together and draws on CRM. If the rear seat is busy doing X or Y, why not have the front seat take the controls? Both seats can actively scan for threats and other aircraft. I'm sure the extra set of eyes will be welcome when squeezing into a tight LZ for troop transport work, and having a front seat to call aiming corrections during gun or rocket runs will make the crew that much more effective. Again you get out of it what you put into it. I'm sure the cockpit will get very busy when the gunner is trying to bomb or hit something with those TOW missiles too! The coordination required to use TOWs in the Gazelle (again back when the multicrew wasn't totally a wreck) was an absolute highlight for me.

Well, this is just a journalist's reasoning about the hypothetical capabilities of the Mi-24, and without taking into account other factors… therefore, this is nothing more than his reasoning, and not at all a systematic phenomenon. :)

Was the Mi-24 used in Afghanistan to deploy special operations troops and to retrieve downed pilots or surrounded troops? There are info on this?

Использовались ли Ми-24 в Афганистане для развертывания войск специального назначения и для спасения сбитых пилотов или окруженных войск? Есть информация по этому поводу?

Google Translate

Was the Mi-24 used in Afghanistan to deploy special operations troops and to retrieve downed pilots or surrounded troops? There are info on this?..

I have already answered a similar question.

… According to the recollections of army aviation pilots from the helicopter units assigned to the special forces who fought in Afghanistan and Chechnya, in almost all cases, only the Mi-8s was involved in the transfer and landing of the special force's sabotage-reconnaissance groups. The tasks of the Mi-24s were to cover the Mi-8s on their route to the landing point or the point of evacuation of sabotage-reconnaissance groups, as well as fire support for the landed special forces…

About what tasks in Afghanistan the Soviet special forces performed together with the helicopter units attached to it, you can briefly read in the Russian-language Wikipedia: План «Завеса» (English: Curtain plan).

More complete information about special force's aviation from the beginning to the end of the Soviet–Afghan War can be read in the next work:

• Viktor Markovsky. "Special force's aviation" [Авиация спецназа]. Equipment and weapons: yesterday, today, tomorrow [Техника и вооружение: вчера, сегодня, завтра] journal (in Russian). #12'2005, #1,3–8,11'2006, #1,3,5,7,11'2007, #1'2008: ISSN 1682-7597.
  

If you are interested in some details and ins, then podpolkovnik Valentin Goncharov tells very interesting things, whose interview you probably already saw. During his second mission to Afghanistan, he served in the 205th Separate Helicopter Squadron in Lashkargah, attached to the 22nd Separate Special Purpose Brigade (in Afghanistan, for reasons of secrecy, it was called the 2nd Separate Motor Rifle Brigade), whose area of responsibility included the border zone of the Helmand Province.

However, as you yourself probably understand, to obtain all this information requires knowledge of the Russian language, and here, unfortunately, I can hardly help you with anything.

The Mi-24 concept was the idea of a 'flying IFV', but it did not justify itself. A small and rather cramped cargo compartment, lower aircraft performance characteristics of the rotorcraft flight structure compared to the Mi-8, which made it possible to use the Mi-24 cargo compartment for the transport of troops only to the detriment of the amount of weapons or fuel. All this made it inexpedient to use the Mi-24 as a 'flying IFV', because the Mi-8 coped with the tasks of transferring and landing troops much more efficiently.

Thanks! That makes sense.

It is a case of strategic thinking (i.e. having a larger air transport capability, and having that force be self-defending) outstripping tactical thinking (i.e. the need to have combat elements and transport elements fight independently) and the available technology of the time (i.e. the actual ability of the helicopter to combine cargo, armour, weapons, and range).

It is kindof a neat idea strategically even though it didn't work out practically.

I do suspect that there might've been the occasional use in a major war: Emergency mass airlift in an emergency (e.g. evacuating airborne troops who are within range), supplementing the Mi-8 fleet once it had faced attrition, maybe carrying infantry over the front at the risk of higher casualties to that infantry (i.e. an echo of the old 'tank-rider' breakthrough doctrines)? Thankfully none of these situations occurred.

Google Translate

Thanks! That makes sense.

 

It is a case of strategic thinking (i.e. having a larger air transport capability, and having that force be self-defending) outstripping tactical thinking (i.e. the need to have combat elements and transport elements fight independently) and the available technology of the time (i.e. the actual ability of the helicopter to combine cargo, armour, weapons, and range).

 

It is kindof a neat idea strategically even though it didn't work out practically.

 

I do suspect that there might've been the occasional use in a major war: Emergency mass airlift in an emergency (e.g. evacuating airborne troops who are within range), supplementing the Mi-8 fleet once it had faced attrition, maybe carrying infantry over the front at the risk of higher casualties to that infantry (i.e. an echo of the old 'tank-rider' breakthrough doctrines)? Thankfully none of these situations occurred.

It seems to me that you somewhat complicate the plans of the Soviet military command of those years. :)

The USSR studied the foreign experience of waging wars rather carefully. Soviet military analysts recognized the combat use of US airmobile units during the Vietnam War as quite successful, for example, such as the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) in 1965. At the same time, conclusions were drawn about the insufficient firepower of the Bell UH-1 type transport helicopters for effective fire support of the airmobile forces. Based on these considerations, the concept of 'flying IFV' won in the USSR (it should also be taken into account that the Soviet Armed Forces did not yet have experience in using airmobile forces and tactics of helicopter landing operations).

In 1968, the first air assault units began to form in the Soviet Army. By this time, the Mil Design Bureau had already begun the development of its Mi-24 'flying IFV'. The future has shown the lack of demand for this concept, but nevertheless, the Mi-24 remains in service to this day. :)

One should not so naively believe everything that is written in the press...

.... and as a rule, they are widely covered in the media on a slightly increased scale....

One shouldn't naively believe either that what has not been written, isn't true.,..

It seems to me that you somewhat complicate the plans of the Soviet military command of those years. :)

 

The USSR studied the foreign experience of waging wars rather carefully. Soviet military analysts recognized the combat use of US airmobile units during the Vietnam War as quite successful, for example, such as the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile) in 1965. At the same time, conclusions were drawn about the insufficient firepower of the Bell UH-1 type transport helicopters for effective fire support of the airmobile forces. Based on these considerations, the concept of 'flying IFV' won in the USSR (it should also be taken into account that the Soviet Armed Forces did not yet have experience in using airmobile forces and tactics of helicopter landing operations).

 

In 1968, the first air assault units began to form in the Soviet Army. By this time, the Mil Design Bureau had already begun the development of its Mi-24 'flying IFV'. The future has shown the lack of demand for this concept, but nevertheless, the Mi-24 remains in service to this day. :)

I believe you.

However, didn't the 'aerial BMP' concept survive experience in Afghanistan - the Mi-36, Mi-40, Mi-42 concepts? The last two would seem to post-date the Afghan war.

I'm also curious as to why the cargo bay was retained when the Mi-35 was redeveloped. They could have removed it.

Watching the full interview now, with translated subtitles. The books are harder to find unless they are available in pdf format.

That orange is just orange, it’s a submarine periscope, nothing more. I don’t know about filters, but if it has an orange filter it’s probably just for orange light

 

I think some IFVs also use that periscope, but it is from a submarine, and I can’t wait to see it!

Here’s another source:

The Raduga complex included a new target aiming and acquisition system. It was originally a submarine periscope dating back to the 1930s mounted upside down! The top side of the latter was in the right front corner of the WSO cockpit, while the other end of the periscope was located inside a new fairing below the right side of the nose. But, of course, this piece of equipment that was obviously satisfactory had to be adapted to its new task. Thus, the mirror was gyro-stabilized. Also, it was possible to choose between a narrow or wide field of view. An integrated thermal seeker allowed automatic tracking of the position of the missile, the latter being equipped with two tracers at the rear. The trajectory of the missile was then corrected by radio-link, while the WSO continually kept the sight crosshairs on the target until impact. Two small metal doors protected the windows of the optics when not in use.

Source: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

Says it’s gyro-stabilized, has narrow and wide FOV + infrared tracking (at least for the missile SACLOS).

Moreover, the Mil Mi-24 Attack Helicopter book cites the Raduga-F as being a LLTV/FLIR.

This answers applies to @Fri13 comment too.

Edit: some more info/sources: https://www.deviantart.com/stealthflanker/art/Raduga-SH-268189991

Since we have a Hind-F (P version), the Raduga is the Raduga-Sh with at least different left fairing for the Shturm guidance antena.

Google Translate

One shouldn't naively believe either that what has not been written, isn't true.,..

"Thrice blessed who believes; believing warms the heart." © Alexander Griboyedov ("Woe from Wit", trans. by Sir Bernard Pares). :)

I believe you.

 

However, didn't the 'aerial BMP' concept survive experience in Afghanistan - the Mi-36, Mi-40, Mi-42 concepts? The last two would seem to post-date the Afghan war.

 

I'm also curious as to why the cargo bay was retained when the Mi-35 was redeveloped. They could have removed it.

To remove the cargo compartment on the Mi-35M, a completely new helicopter must be designed. And such a helicopter has existed for a relatively long time – this is the Mi-28, but, as you know, it does not have a cargo compartment (apart from a small radio equipment compartment). Mi-36, Mi-40, Mi-42 are just concepts so far, the success of which can be said only after their implementation.

IMHO, in general, it is possible to judge the consistency of the 'flying IFV' concept only after repeated experience of its combat use in real combat operations, and not after demonstration exercises for staff generals and the press, in the absence of a real enemy. So far, in real hostilities, we only see that the tasks of landing special force's sabotage-reconnaissance groups, evacuating downed pilots, etc., are performed by the same Mi-8s, while the Mi-24s and Mi-35Ms just provide cover for them.

If you have a desire to practice in Google/Yandex translation, then on Russian forums you can read the opinions of real army aviation pilots on the concept of transporting troops on the Mi-24, starting with the next post and further on the topic: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4462955. :)

… The books are harder to find unless they are available in pdf format.

Previously, PDF could be found in the Russian-language segment of the Internet, but now almost all resources have been cleaned up at the request of the copyright holder. Even in the archive on the publisher's website, you can purchase issues only from 2018 and later. However, there are still resources with reprints, but it is quite difficult to collect all the parts from the series of articles there: #12'2005, #1,3–8,11'2006, #1,3,5,7,11'2007, #1'2008.

Here’s another source:

 

 

Source: https://www.16va.be/4.2_les_mi-24_part1_eng.html

 

Says it’s gyro-stabilized, has narrow and wide FOV + infrared tracking (at least for the missile SACLOS).

 

Moreover, the Mil Mi-24 Attack Helicopter book cites the Raduga-F as being a LLTV/FLIR…

The IRDF of the infrared signal for tracking ATGM, which is part of the radio-guided SACLOS, has nothing to do with LLTV and FLIR. The Mi-24 (with the exception of the Mi-24PN) never had any LLTV and FLIR.

Thanks for the link, translated and printed!

just an earnest question out of interest - or rather a suggestion.

I would like to re-read all of these excellent, and source-heavy contributions to be commented on from their OPs purely from the angle of the Mi-24P model (fixed  ГШ-2-30К under pilot-cmdr control, SACLOS guidance with pilot cmdr weapon release).

Both from real life era knowlegde, what little there is known  about the Petrovic AI and its (speculative) jester-like radial control-UI and the implementation potentials and necessities in the few existing correct-era multiplayer locations and for the HIND-airframe multiplayer (crewed by 2 players).

The latter of course in purely fictional but era-correct scenarios as the most suitable terrains actually are Caucasus, Syria, Persian Gulf by proliferation and immersion.

On 8/24/2020 at 12:35 AM, S.E.Bulba said:

 

To remove the cargo compartment on the Mi-35M, a completely new helicopter must be designed. And such a helicopter has existed for a relatively long time – this is the Mi-28, but, as you know, it does not have a cargo compartment (apart from a small radio equipment compartment). Mi-36, Mi-40, Mi-42 are just concepts so far, the success of which can be said only after their implementation.

 

IMHO, in general, it is possible to judge the consistency of the 'flying IFV' concept only after repeated experience of its combat use in real combat operations, and not after demonstration exercises for staff generals and the press, in the absence of a real enemy. So far, in real hostilities, we only see that the tasks of landing special force's sabotage-reconnaissance groups, evacuating downed pilots, etc., are performed by the same Mi-8s, while the Mi-24s and Mi-35Ms just provide cover for them.

 

 

 

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Original in Russian

 

«Блажен кто верует, тепло ему на свете!» © Александр Грибоедов («Горе от ума»).

 

 

Чтобы убрать грузовую кабину на Ми-35М, надо полностью спроектировать новый вертолёт. И такой вертолёт относительно давно уже существует – это Ми-28, но он как известно без грузовой кабины (не считая небольшого отсека радиооборудования). Ми-36, Ми-40, Ми-42 – это пока всего лишь концепции, говорить об успешности которых можно лишь только после их реализации.

 

ИМХО, вообще судить о состоятельности концепции «летающей БМП» можно лишь после многократного опыта её боевого применения в реальных боевых действиях, а не после показательных учений для штабных генералов и прессы, при отсутствии реального противника. Пока что в реальных боевых действиях мы видим лишь то, что задачи по высадке ДРГ спецназа, эвакуации сбитых пилотов и т.д., выполняют всё те же Ми-8, в то время как Ми-24 и Ми-35М всего лишь обеспечивают их прикрытие.

 

Если у Вас есть желание попрактиковаться в Google/Yandex-переводе, то на русскоязычных форумах можете почитать мнения реальных пилотов армейской авиации по поводу концепции перевозки десанта на Ми-24, начиная со следующего поста и далее по теме: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4462955.

 

 

Раньше PDF можно было найти в русскоязычном сегменте Интернета, однако сейчас практически все ресурсы были зачищены по требованию правообладателя. Даже в архиве на сайте издательства можно приобрести выпуски лишь начиная с 2018 года и позднее. Правда есть ещё ресурсы с перепечатками, но там довольно сложно собрать все части из цикла статей: №12/2005, №1,3–8,11/2006, №1,3,5,7,11/2007, №1/2008.

 

 

ИК-пеленгатор инфракрасного сигнала слежения за ПТУР, входящий в состав аппаратуры РКСН, не имеет ничего общего с НУТВ- и тепловизионными прицельными системами. Ми-24 (за исключением Ми-24ПН) никогда не имел никаких НУТВ- и тепловизионных прицельных систем.

 

While true, there are reasons for having Hind with transport space. Helicopters spend most of their life in peace so having attack helo that can supplement transport is great, especially for small countries. What is interesting is that countries that have access to proper attack helicopters also bought Hinds. Iraq operates Mi28 but also Mi35. Egypt  has Apache and Ka52 and still they made emergency purchase of few Hinds. Why Mil still pushes Hind after all this time when they have better product - there is a need for it.

Жаль нет карты Авганистана.Но самая наверное похожая,горная местность в реалии DCS это Персидский залив.