I know this isn't directly EEAH/-CH related, but I guess I can aks it here at it is about russian armament.

I've always wondered why the 57mm rocket pod has such a strange shape compared to other rocket pods.
The pod is cone shaped on the front but then the centered rocket tubes stick out. Does anyone have any idea as to why that is?

The Russian 57mm pod:

I'd hazard a guess it makes them more aerodynamic than having a simple cylindrical shape. These pods are also used on fixed wing Russian attack aircraft where it may matter more.

Then again it may just be like a go-fast stripe or a flame job...it just looks meaner.

I get the part that it'll be more aerodymanic but why would the center tubes stick out that much? That's what I'm wondering, because I don't see the need for that..

I think there are some differences between the russian pods and the NATO standard pods.

The western rocket pods has a concentrated (or parallel) sheaf, to precision launches. The russians are developed for area saturation and the pods has a conical sheaf.

You can see it at these videos: http://vootatico.com/?p=239

Just a wild guess here but maybe the centre rocket pods dont go back any further, hence they need the surrounding tube (metal sheath) to keep them in place.

Nice clips! Love the Russian Hind's entering the targetzone, spraying rockets all around and retreating while dumping some precautionary flares!

Nice pink Mi-24!
Regards, Kodiak.

Fancy color scheme huh

This is a really interesting comment. If you can find more references I would love to see them (I will check and see if I can find a diagram)

I have read that a standard S-8 pod (B8 or V20) is considered to be three times effective for its weight when compared to the an S-5 pod (in this case the UB-32). This was ascribed to the increased warhead size and increased accuracy.

Factors effecting barrage accuracy would be:
- Defects in the rounds (many rockets have a few of the round behave "very unpredictably")
- The ballistics of the rounds (eg. rotations per second, weight)
- The aerodynamics of the rounds (eg. speed, stabiliser structure, rotor downwash)
- The angle of the tubes
- Airframe vibration

According to some data the S-8 and S-13 are accurate to a 6m radius at two kilometres. I doubt this is the case outside of the lab though (given the list above). Accuracy is not always to be wanted. I actually do not use rockets in most sims because they are two accurate. There is something to be said in being able to blanket a target 1000 metres away in a second or two (when it would take six seconds or so to use a guided weapon at that range).

Anyway, it would seem to me that there are two strategies:
- using many small rockets for saturation and chancing that out of twenty rockets a couple will score direct hits.
- using larger rockets that have more powerful indirect warheads (submunition, fragmentation or thermobaric/overpressure) that are more accurate.

Btw. much of the design of the S-25 appears to be seeking accuracy for the large rockets (improving on the S-24 as the S-24 improved upon the S-21).

I would love to see EECH model dispersion in rockets.

How about this for dispersion!


In fact it might be a little too much.

That reminded me that the rockets needed some work. This should look more like your video
http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/arneh/2395/large/

(The rockets only produce smoke for the first second, while the rocket engine is still burning. And it's a little more smoke. And the rockets have dispersal and gravity drop).

Well, a little too much for the S-13 perhaps... What build is this and when can I get it?

This is probably the first helosim to model dispersion for rockets at all!

Well, any build actually, if you just change the WUT-file. It's linked to "ignore gravity" option for some reason, so if you allow rockets to be affected by gravity they will also have dispersion.

But it's a bit hard to hit anything with gravity turned on, as the helicopter's sight does not take gravity into account. I'll see if I'm able to change it calculate drop as well for the next release...

Nice work, arneh. This smoke effect is great!

In this video, you can see it too: http://vootatico.com/?p=133 (at 3:30)

I agree with Lionpride that bombs would be nice (although they might not be usable for the AI). Russian helicopters can generally carry any Russian bomb up to 500kgs. Some hardpoints can also take MBD-4 racks (allowing the hind to carry up to ten 100kg bombs). I have updated the armaments section for the Hind at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi-24

Both high caliber rockets (S-24 and S-25) and missiles (S-25L, KH-25L) would be easier to implement.

Arneh, if you are ever looking to correct Russian missile characteristics I have been gathering information.

I don't plan on adding any new weapons anytime soon. That's a much bigger task.

But if you have any more information on the existing weapons then that would be interesting.

Well, to summarise hear is the basic information:

The 9M120 (Mi-28):
- Radio-Command guided SACLOS. The CP/G and computer keep the optics on the target and the computer tracks the missile and guides it to the target (the system is essential visual/inertial which means that the missile is more accurate at close range).
- The system has limited off boresight and all weather capability. It can be fired singly or in pairs.
- Two modes of flight: direct or limited loft (unlike that on the AGM-114 the loft is designed only to clear obstacles)
- 8km maximum range, three rounds (AT, Thermobaric/demolition, Fragmentation/Air-to-Air)

The 9A1472 (Ka-52):
- Laser-Beam riding. The laser is pointed near the target and the missile has rearward facing sensors. (more accurate at long range, primarily good weather, less vulnerable to smokescreens)
- Almost no off boresight cabability, less maneuverable. Launcher is depressable through 12 degrees. It can be fired singly or in pairs.
- four fixed control surfaces and one moving control surface (producing a spiral flight path)
- 8km maximum range from helicopter, proximity detonator and fragmentation ring for air-to-air use

In addition:
- The periscope should be fully stabilised on Russian helicopters
- It would be nice to have a slow motion mode added (if you are editing the code)

Didn't know the Ataka had a loft mode. Would that flight path perhaps look something like the normal (LOBL) mode of the hellfire?



And didn't know the Vikhr was that limited in off-boresight capability. But that's easily adjustable from the GWUT file. In gwut182 it is limited to 15° off boresight capability, but we should reduce it even more?

By depressable through 12 degrees do you mean it can depress 12 degrees below horizontal? Or just that it have 12 degrees of movement? I can't see many situations where it would be useful to depress it much down...


This is the only place I've seen a range of more than 6km for the Ataka... Do you have a source to back it up? And for the Vikhr I've seen ranges of up to 10km.



Stabalized in what way?

Not really, the loft represents a very gradual increase in altitude which only amounts to a few metres and then a slightly steeper dive on the target. The missile is primarily visually and ballistically guided so it would be harder to calculate as steep a final dive as the hellfire makes.

One has to remember that the 9M120 was also developed to compete as a weapon for the modernisation some of the older ground based tank-killer systems. The loft mode allows the gunner to target an enemy visually who is in rough terrain without having to worry about the missile trying to pass through a fence (or other object) and prematurely detonating.

There is a diagram I can try to find online. The effect is visible in some of the official Mi-28N night attack videos and can also be seen on some barrel launched anti-tank missiles.



It actually appears to have at least the off-boresight capability used in GWUT. The problem is that the missile has to be launched almost straight ahead so that it remains in the laser beam (which is very narrow near the aircraft). As a laser-beam rider the launch platform has to stay approximately parallel with the missiles course after launch (ie. if it flies sideways too much it will loose the missile). So I would massively lower the missiles maneuverability and lower the off-boresight to something like four degrees.

As for the launcher it is motorised and can depress the launch tubes to 12 degrees below horizontal (there is absolutely no upward or horizontal movement). The actual hardpoint that launcher is mounted on may actually be angled upward by a few degrees (stub wings tend to be angled upward to aid forward flight and it would make sense for the hardpoints to be angled upward to at least some extent for firing rockets while in a dive).



The stated range for the 9M120M is 8km. In bad/combat conditions effective range may be less (like with any weapon system). First generation 9M120s did have a range closer to 6km, but my assumption is that production Mi-28s will carry the newer variant (which also has double the minimum range). Due to the limitations of the guidance system PK begins to drop after 4km and this is one of the reasons why two missiles are normally fired.

The 9A1472 (carried on Kamovs and Sukhois) has a range of 10km only if it is launched from a fixed wing platform (adding altitude and speed). The stated range for a heliborne launch is only around 8km.

See: http://www.airwar.ru (under weapons AAT)

[/quote]

You caught me here! Everything else is well researched (primarily from http://www.airwar.ru). This, on the other hand, is simple logic. First it is modelled as stabilised by ED, Second there is almost no point in the higher levels of magnification if the sight is fully unstabilised (as in the original EECH).

A diagram would be helpful, yes. Which Mi-28N videos do you talk about? Can I find them anywhere?



Interesting. So what would be the use for depressing them so much down on a helicopter? I can hardly see where that would be useful, as the helicopter is likely to be either at hover or in forward flight when firing, and then it would not be much use depressing the launchers down...



But I still don't understand in which way you want it to be stabalized. Like the Comanches ground stablized camera (Ctrl+S), where it follows a point on the ground? In that case it would have to be switchable, as it wouldn't be very useful if the camera kept trying to point at a point at the helibase where the mission started, and you had to manually move it across all the terrain to where you wanted it.

Or maybe it's enough for it to be stabalized in pitch, and let heading change with helicopters heading? Or stablized in pitch and bearing, but not stablized to a fixed point on the ground (e.g. a point 3000 meters ahead and 10 deg to the right).

Many ways to stabalize it in some way, and I don't understand which way you propose.