What does the guy up front do?

Something Mover said comes to mind in response to this comment: "No single-seat fighter pilot has ever said he wished he had a WSO." Not sure that's a direct quote but that's the gist.

True, but on the other hand no two seat fighter pilot has ever wished he was alone in the jet ;)

I'll have to disagree. In all of history, we've only had exactly one operational single-seat attack helicopter, and combat experience with it led the designers to ditch the concept and move towards a traditional two-pilot arrangement.

No. Wrong. I wish this myth would just die. It has been discussed to death already, and not only on this forums.

Combat trials of the KA-50 was deemed a success and the pilots reported they liked the aircraft and the "increased load" was not an issue, thanks to it's advanced systems.

The faith of the KA-50 and the KA-52 are because of totally different reasons, that were not supposed to discuss in this thread.

...

The faith of the KA-50 and the KA-52 are because of totally different reasons, that were not supposed to discuss in this thread.

You had my curiosity, now you have my attention! I always thought the "myth" was the reason behind the concept of the two-seater. It's not you say and can't be discussed here but it was discussed somewhere else? Where, please? I'd like to read about it.

Well, the tactical significance of the additional pair of eyeballs is indeed pretty huge, but for the gameplay it doesn't add much.

Unless the AI (or other player) is good at sharing info.

That's because most single-seat fighter pilots are self-loving psychos mostly concerned with air-to-air and frontline strike duties. Nobody likes a guy in the back for a job that doesn't need one, but the guys flying single-seaters aren't the ones doing things where another pair of eyes and hands are needed.

Well you tell the pilots that to their faces. I don't care about the forum slander. I just know I'm a single-player pilot so if modules are made that have two seats there had better be intuitive ways to utilize the AI, sort of like the F-14 Jester. But hopefully better than jester because he can be a turd most of the time.

You had my curiosity, now you have my attention! I always thought the "myth" was the reason behind the concept of the two-seater. It's not you say and can't be discussed here but it was discussed somewhere else? Where, please? I'd like to read about it.

KA-50 Black Shark forum section.

I'm pretty sure I've seen your face there XD

Google Translate

No. Wrong. I wish this myth would just die. It has been discussed to death already, and not only on this forums.

 

Combat trials of the KA-50 was deemed a success and the pilots reported they liked the aircraft and the "increased load" was not an issue, thanks to it's advanced systems.

 

The faith of the KA-50 and the KA-52 are because of totally different reasons, that were not supposed to discuss in this thread.

One should not repeat like a mantra the words of the couch-based 'experts' whose superficial knowledge is based only on frankly partisan sources.

What "successful combat trials" are you talking about? Yes, in Chechnya, the Ka-50 showed itself as a helicopter with relatively high aircraft performance characteristics, capable of performing combat missions in the daytime using an external targeting system (data link)… but nothing more.

The Russian army, with its limited budget, does not need a highly specialized attack helicopter that does not fully meet the requirements of modern warfare. The army needs a universal round-the-clock machine capable with sufficient efficiency to carry out combat missions to search for and destroy targets both with the use of an external targeting system and independently… both during the day and at night, including in IFR weather conditions and at extremely low altitudes, as well as under the threat of enemy's AAAD. One helicopter pilot cannot provide all of the above requirements (especially those emphasized), this was recognized, among other things, by the developers of the Kamov JSC.

If you take the trouble to translate an old article from the Krasnaya Zvezda, the official newspaper of the Russian Ministry of Defense, in which some Russian high-ranking military leaders express their assessments of the Mi-24, Mi-28 and Ka-50 helicopters, then you will learn a lot of new things for yourself [part 1 and part 2]… but I'm afraid it will break some of your templates. I will give you a small quote describing only one episode of comparative tests of the Mi-28 and Ka-50 prototypes in 1986.

… Ещё один важнейший недостаток Ка-50: один лётчик просто физически не в состоянии пилотировать машину на предельно малых высотах или в горах и при этом находить и поражать цели.

• В апреле 1986-го на Гороховецком полигоне проводились совместные полёты Ми-28 и Ка-50 по программе государственных испытаний, – продолжает генерал-полковник Виталий Павлов. – Задача – обнаружить на поле боя 25 целей. Ми-28 с двумя лётчиками, идя на предельно малой высоте – 5–10 метров, отыскал все цели, не будучи обнаруженным, а значит, сбитым средствами ПВО. А вот лётчик Ка-50, летая значительно выше, сумел найти лишь две цели, зато сам был обнаружен, едва взлетев. Выводы делайте сами…
  

To be clear, I do indeed see a utility for a second man in most helos. My personal comment was aimed at fixed wing fighters in general : a second man is helpful in certain scenarios, but 90% of the time his presence or absence is irrelevant, and even when useful it can be done without him. The comment about software vs wetware misses the point, which was that the second man has limited/no utility. If his job is done by a computer, that's good, but he's still not needed. Hell, improvements to the HOTAS arrangement eliminated 90% of the backseater's job.

My in particular for the Hind-P. He's a spotter, yeah that's nice, like having a passenger in my two-seat car can potentially mitigate accidents, but he's still non-critical to say the least. In that particular helicopter, the main reason he's there, in a fixed firing, daytime only helo, is because getting rid of him would require a complete redesign.

The Havoc has more for the guy to do (swivel gun, day/night ops, etc). But the Hind-P? Dude's just there for the ride, unless they're using atgms, which they almost never do, as far as I've seen. They almost never use the gun either, 90% of the time it's dumb rockets and occasionally bombs.

but he's still non-critical to say the least.

"Ми-28 с двумя лётчиками, идя на предельно малой высоте – 5–10 метров, отыскал все цели, не будучи обнаруженным, а значит, сбитым средствами ПВО. А вот лётчик Ка-50, летая значительно выше, сумел найти лишь две цели, зато сам был обнаружен, едва взлетев. Выводы делайте сами…"

Translate:

"The Mi-28, having two crew members, flew at an extremely low altitude of 5-10 meters, finding all of the 25 targets without being dectected (and thus not being engaged) by air defenses. The Ka-50 pilot, flying substantially higher, was only able to make out two of the 25 targets while being detected by air defenses early on. You can draw the conclusion yourself..."

Sounds rather critical to me. Although its arguable whether the typical attack helo mission involves flying below 5m in search of targets.

Personally, I would very much like to have at least an AI looking for targets and warning me of incoming missiles/AAA. SA was always a problem in the Ka-50 (at least for me), especially when heads down aiming with the Shkval.

"Ми-28 с двумя лётчиками, идя на предельно малой высоте – 5–10 метров, отыскал все цели, не будучи обнаруженным, а значит, сбитым средствами ПВО. А вот лётчик Ка-50, летая значительно выше, сумел найти лишь две цели, зато сам был обнаружен, едва взлетев. Выводы делайте сами…"

Translate:

"The Mi-28, having two crew members, flew at an extremely low altitude of 5-10 meters, finding all of the 25 targets without being dectected (and thus not being engaged) by air defenses. The Ka-50 pilot, flying substantially higher, was only able to make out two of the 25 targets while being detected by air defenses early on. You can draw the conclusion yourself..."

 

Sounds rather critical to me. Although its arguable whether the typical attack helo mission involves flying below 5m in search of targets.

Personally, I would very much like to have at least an AI looking for targets and warning me of incoming missiles/AAA. SA was always a problem in the Ka-50 (at least for me), especially when heads down aiming with the Shkval.

All of which has nothing to do with the sentence you quoted, which was about the second man in a Mi-24P (note talking about a Hind-P) NOT a Mi-28. The second guy in a Havoc has dedicated day night sensors in a mast projecting well above the rotors, similar to a OH-58 or Apache Longbow. Yeah, they can hover behind trees and spot targets quietly from a distance. That has less to do with ''two-man'' as it does ''dedicated mast mounted sensors''. If the Ka-50 had that (the Ka-52 does) it could theoretically do the same thing.

The second guy in a Mi-24P..... IS LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW.

Not the same thing. Not even remotely.

-edit

Actually depends on the 28s model. The N has the mast. The base version doesn't. Still, the Ka-50s nose mounted TV doesn't do it any good there. He's still acquiring target manually and has to expose himself to do it.

Regardless, with sensors, the point stands, you don't HAVE to have a second man. If you're just looking out the window, yeah more eyes are better. If you've got some semi-useful alternative, that's even better.

Is there more to that article? Because it's a bit ''skimpy on details'' in one paragraph. If just a ''second guy'' is all there was to it, then there's nothing much superior in the Mi-28 over the Mi-24 except a slightly smaller cargohold. It would equally be ''superior'' to a Ka-50. -edit (the Hind that is)

The Ka-50 itself is suboptimal in a lot of ways, due to design shortcomings. It's an early experiment, but combined with modern technology and sensors, you could mitigate a lot of its shortcomings.

@sebulba

Lol, well most everybody here are amateurs playing a video game :p

Google Translate

… Translate:

"The Mi-28, having two crew members, flew at an extremely low altitude of 5-10 meters, finding all of the 25 targets without being dectected (and thus not being engaged) by air defenses…

Despite the somewhat complicated style of this Russian text, you have correctly interpreted its translation. :yes:

Google Translate

… The second guy in a Mi-24P..... IS LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW.

 

Not the same thing. Not even remotely.

 

-edit

Actually depends on the 28s model. The N has the mast. The base version doesn't. Still, the Ka-50s nose mounted TV doesn't do it any good there. He's still acquiring target manually and has to expose himself to do it.

 

Regardless, with sensors, the point stands, you don't HAVE to have a second man. If you're just looking out the window, yeah more eyes are better. If you've got some semi-useful alternative, that's even better…

Sorry, I'm not at all going to enter into polemics and waste time on translations, I just want to note that you have a somewhat amateurish idea about the functions of the Mi-24P second crew member (operator) in particular, and about the specifics of the combat use of attack helicopters in general. :)

zhukov, the distinction of looking out the window or into a screen is absolutely irrelevant for the attack profiles described.

At the altitudes the Mi-24 flies attack missions in (i.e. >200km/h at 5m, not hiding behind trees or hovering), the pilot only has enough attention span and reaction time for one thing - not crashing into the ground. The operator is the person responsible for looking outside (either regular visual scanning or with the aid of the magnified periscope sight) and communicating direction, range and any additional information about spotted targets. With this information at hand, the pilot can then choose the right time to pop up and transition to the terminal attack phase by looking in the direction indicated by the operator.

If flying alone, the pilot has to either fly higher (which exposes them to fire on the way in) or only start scanning after the pop-up, which severely limits the acquisition time.

All of which has nothing to do with the sentence you quoted, which was about the second man in a Mi-24P

This:

If flying alone, the pilot has to either fly higher (which exposes them to fire on the way in) or only start scanning after the pop-up, which severely limits the acquisition time.

It doesn't matter what sensors you have in your aircraft if you have to focus on flying/shooting.

Also keep in mind that the pilot does not have the periscope sight. Even if he did (like in the Ka-50), using it while flying NOE is suicide.

Despite the somewhat complicated style of this Russian text, you have correctly interpreted its translation. :yes:

I know, I translated it myself :)

I want to thank Sebulba for posting those articles and I want to rrquest To get more of that sort, so I we all can learn about the story of the helicopter and the tactics used by its pilots.

One thing that surprised me was the use of the cargo compartment to deploy and recover ground infantry, in the russian forums they always said it was not practical.

I will gladly be the guy in front for someone, as long as VR is properly implemented. I don't mind being someone who only occasionally has to do something and is basically just another pair of eyeballs. It will be a nice change from the norm.

Google Translate

I want to thank Sebulba for posting those articles and I want to rrquest To get more of that sort, so I we all can learn about the story of the helicopter and the tactics used by its pilots…

I am glad that this information was at least something interesting to you. However, I doubt that anyone else besides you will want to solve the Cyrillic texts here and spend time translating them. :)

… One thing that surprised me was the use of the cargo compartment to deploy and recover ground infantry, in the russian forums they always said it was not practical.

I'm sorry, maybe I did not quite understand you correctly… but for some reason I do not remember that the article wrote about the systematic use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment for the transport of troops. IIRC, it mentions the use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment only for the emergency evacuation of the wounded, as well as for conducting aerial reconnaissance by combined-arms commanders.

I'll have to disagree. In all of history, we've only had exactly one operational single-seat attack helicopter, and combat experience with it led the designers to ditch the concept and move towards a traditional two-pilot arrangement.

Actually the opposite. The pilots praised the KA-50 single seat ergonomics and low workload to fly it, compared to even Mi-24 that was familiarization helicopter in Chechen war for pilots as KA-50 was a single seater.

Why KAMOV made KA-50-2 was because Turkey wanted (among others) a traditional two-seater.

And If I need to engage same target with F/A-18C and KA-50, I am far more faster and comfortable with a KA-50 than Hornet.

Reason is that the user interface is better on KA-50 to be able detect and engage targets. As well the KABRIS is superior to TAMMAC (our hornet lacks proper features on it).

If I am going to engage the target in Hornet with a unguided bombs, it is easier and safer as CCIP mode makes it easy. Same is with rockets. There I feel black shark to be completely underdog. With a AT missiles I take black shark easily more often.

But there is huge difference to provide a recon. That is simply the altitude where hornet feels safer than a Black Shark, that is like naked at higher altitude.

If I would have a co-pilot to do all targeting etc in Hornet, PLEASE YES!

That is what I wanted from Mi-24 to be a V, let me fly and co-pilot use the gun or missiles. Let me get close to cause havoc among troops etc. But if there is a M113 even, I say "good buy" to a Mi-8 and any frontal engagement as those are deadly, and I welcome KA-50 that can easily deal those out from the combat.

Two or three flying in a formation of KA-50 is deadly. You have multiple eye pairs, long engagement capability and nice coverage to each others.

If something is closer to Black Shark capability, it is A-10C.

But I likely will change opinion on Hornet once its JHMCS is capable to designate ground targets. As I so often find targets or target area visually way earlier than with any other sensor, and it can help a lot to get TPOD on target. Just like in Black Shark.

I am glad that this information was at least something interesting to you. However, I doubt that anyone else besides you will want to solve the Cyrillic texts here and spend time translating them. :)

Just keep coming....

I'm sorry, maybe I did not quite understand you correctly… but for some reason I do not remember that the article wrote about the systematic use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment for the transport of troops. IIRC, it mentions the use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment only for the emergency evacuation of the wounded, as well as for conducting aerial reconnaissance by combined-arms commanders.

As far I know, it was more for a special forces transporting than other fighting groups, if not counting medievac tasks or transporting ammo and supplies to troops at Frontline.

Mi-8 always better for troops transporting, but Mi-24 was nice for small groups when required.

After flying Mi-8MTv2 for troop transport and support with rockets, I like to give that support task for a Mi-24 instead. The Mi-8 is fairly "toothless" for other than a attack against infantry without AA capabilities.

I'm sorry, maybe I did not quite understand you correctly… but for some reason I do not remember that the article wrote about the systematic use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment for the transport of troops. IIRC, it mentions the use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment only for the emergency evacuation of the wounded, as well as for conducting aerial reconnaissance by combined-arms commanders.

Would I be correct to say that the original doctrine considered the possibility of the Mi-24 being used to move troops or cargo in an emergency where extra capacity was needed (e.g. at some points in a war with another major power)?

Of course, in the reality of lower 'intensity' conflicts the Mi-8 fleet provided more than enough capacity. There was little point in the Mi-24 having a cargo bay in practice.

Google Translate

… As far I know, it was more for a special forces transporting than other fighting groups, if not counting medievac tasks or transporting ammo and supplies to troops at Frontline.

Mi-8 always better for troops transporting, but Mi-24 was nice for small groups when required…

If there were such cases, it was rather the exception than the rule. 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.

Would I be correct to say that the original doctrine considered the possibility of the Mi-24 being used to move troops or cargo in an emergency where extra capacity was needed (e.g. at some points in a war with another major power)?

 

Of course, in the reality of lower 'intensity' conflicts the Mi-8 fleet provided more than enough capacity. There was little point in the Mi-24 having a cargo bay in practice.

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.

 

I'm sorry, maybe I did not quite understand you correctly… but for some reason I do not remember that the article wrote about the systematic use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment for the transport of troops. IIRC, it mentions the use of the Mi-24 cargo compartment only for the emergency evacuation of the wounded, as well as for conducting aerial reconnaissance by combined-arms commanders.

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.

Yeah, SACLOS guidance is that "simple", the usual problems are accounting for motion or vibration in the firing platform, I assume that the Mi24 sight is at least somewhat stabilized though.

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:

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

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 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!