Black Shark 3?

@Fri13 I don’t find realistic your guess about the third pylon. I don’t believe ED will do such unrealistic mod. The current wired for A-A in Ka-50 is linked to the current external pylons. Do you see in the last shared photos the third pylon light indicator, I don’t. Why you keep talking about third pylon?

@Fri13 I don’t find realistic your guess about the third pylon. I don’t believe ED will do such unrealistic mod. The current wired for A-A in Ka-50 is linked to the current external pylons. Do you see in the last shared photos the third pylon light indicator, I don’t. Why you keep talking about third pylon?

Read again my message, it was a reply.

If you can't follow the discussion...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3979245&postcount=725

Read again my message, it was a reply.

If you can't follow the discussion...

Specially your Cannibalized history, wings exchange and wiring theory of your last post. Just flipping...

We need wait. Probably the most expecting features will be the igla missiles. Why not pictures show about third pylons, because there are not such a third pylon. The igla probably will be on internal pylons or external. OK I never have seen a igla set on internal, so must be external most probably. External we often set Vikhr missiles...

 

as you see in pictures, they show Vikhr rack with two empty slots. That may be because on those slots can be set the iglas.

Again a illogical claim that you have duplicate controls for same thing, and two different ways to select the same outer station based what weapons you have.

As you have a two stations, OUTER and INNER, at any given time you select a station by either one, right?

So if you want weapon that is on inner, you tilt station selector hat to right that says "INNER".

REGARDLESS the weapon, the weapons computer reads what is there and sets correct parameters for the targeting. Like it reads there is a S-8 rocket pods, so targeting is for rockets, and pilots sets rocket type elsewhere and targeting systems adjust based the rocket type.

If there are bombs, weapons computer does same thing for them etc.

If the are cannon pods, it again does it same.

Vikhr can't be mounted on anything else than outer station, yet the manufacturer states that any weapon configuration is possible. Making you can always carry X + Y combo. Maybe Y + Y but not X + X.

Meaning, no racks of Vikhr for both INNER and OUTER stations, but you can pair Vikhr with anything in INNER.

If you can't place A-A missiles in the INNER station, can you carry any combination of the available weapons? NO!

Because you would need to replace Vikhr with A-A and so on can't ever carry A-A with Vikhr and so on never have any combination!

Now, if you set A-A replacing Vikhrs in OUTER station, why do you need to use a special A-A station selector instead OUTER?

Can't the WCS detect that OUTER pylon has A-A missiles instead Vikhr, bombs, rockets etc like it can on any other pylon in any other station? Why the A-A missiles requires a own dedicated selector UP and can't be activated with OUTER hat direction to left?

If the UP direction is "A-A mode", then what it is doing in the STATION selection hat? If you have all four stations as S-8 rockets, what does that UP do?

At least it is logical that INNER and OUTER allows to fire rockets in pairs from two pods only, and DOWN allows to select ALL STATIONS so you can fire from all four pods if you have all same.

Why is the UP dedicated for A-A and for nothing else?

In the current targeting computer configuration panel you have four buttons in box form.

Automatic Turn On Target | A-A Head-On

A-A mode | Moving Target

Now we do know that Vikhr has two warheads that you can select from before the launching by:

1) The normal tandem warhead with impact fuze, against heavily armored vehicles like MBT. This by having "A-A mode deselected".

2) The fragmentation sleeve warhead with proximity fuze (5-7 meters), against air targets and soft targets like trucks, APC, infantry etc. This by selecting "A-A mode".

And if you select the "A-A head-on", you will program Vikhr proximity fuze to trigger as soon as it detects a target, so aircraft that flies toward Vikhr doesn't fly past missile before it detonates fragmentation sleeve around it (not forward, not rearward).

Why do you duplicate that A-A mode to the STATION selector hat, that has nothing to do with warhead selection mode?

As you need to choose as well the proximity fuze sensitivity before the launch, why do you require now the pilot still move his hand on same panel that has that A-A mode button next to it?

Is it in the hat because you need to quickly set A-A mode?

Which one is far more dangerous, a air target that flies parallel to you, or that flies straight ahead of you?

I would say that fighter flying toward you is far more dangerous than helicopter flying parallel to you.

So why is that critical proximity fuze button still in the panel, instead in the collective?

I don't now remember that does the current hat UP switch as well to Vikhrs, but I don't recall that, only that it was made duplicate from that one button, only for Vikhrs... So you still need to first select OUTER, then push UP to go A-A mode, and still then move hand to panel to press "Head-On" mode...

Does that sound logical?

Why not hat left for OUTER, hand to panel and press "A-A" and "Head-On"?

And why does the weapon configuration panel still have those button colors BLACK and RED different order between KA-50 variants? Why there was translation for "Jettison A-A weapon" instead "Jettison selected station"?

The Mig-29 pilots flight manual states that there are three ways to target. Using a radar, using a EOS or aiming missile seeker with HMS. Meaning, you do not need EOS to aim and lock R-73 or R-60M.

Now considering that KA-50 has HMS, it would be logical to assume that the presented and documented capability of R-73 in possible configuration would mean that you can aim the seeker with HMS, but considering that you anyways would select the INNER pylon first, need to have HMS brought down with hand, activate is power from switch in panel, and WCS still should know that INNER station has A-A missile, so why need to select such from extra UP position instead RIGHT? Why when you need to do couple other things as well to get targeting via assumed HMS. If no such thing but just boresight targeting via HUD, why the need for UP instead RIGHT?

(This as all photos or documents has shown R-73 in OUTER station, and it could be paired with Vikhr, then allowing any combination of weapons.)

Heck, if something, then I would have put that UP hat as FLARE function of not to select station! Yeah, let me fire one flare from right/left/both as set at CM panel...

Or why not a Laser On/Off there?

Or how about "Reset Targeting"?

Laser ranging and guidance to Laser designation switch?

Launch override?

I could think many other good functionality there in that UP position that has nothing to do with STATION selection between INNER and OUTER or BOTH!

In fact, I would not place there anything, keep it only as three modes, as then in haste I wouldn't accidentally select A-A mode...

Specially your Cannibalized history, wings exchange and wiring theory of your last post. Just flipping...

You failed to read... And you accept the logic:

"Hey boss, you know that we do have a four way hat in the collective but we use just the three directions as we have INNER, OUTER and BOTH, so I got idea that we could wire that fourth UP direction to perform the duplication of the targeting system, but just the A-A mode button.... That way we have all the four directions used, what do you say?"

I'm sorry, can I have a quick brief, so that I can avoid 72 pages? Just one question: will the BS3 be a real black shark version (be it a newer one, a prototype built in only one unit, or whatever) or a fictional black shark with systems borrowed from the Ka-52? It would be the first time ED develops something fictional, and I won't be happy with that choice.

Please take all the comments about switch positions and 'there is no production Ka-50, only on-going prototypes' as wishful thinking / imaginative justification / denial of reality (whichever you want to call it).

If you read the entire thread you'll see that there is no physical evidence that the Ka-50 ever had the systems the new version will have.

Add to that the fact that in the Russian forums ED have explicitly said that the addition of IGLAs is fictional, that no Ka-50 were made or flew with those systems (or with 3 sets of pylons, should the extra pylons appear).

S.E.Bulba said to Chizh : " the “budget” daily modification of the Ka-50 (which is actually in our game) didn’t seem to have ever been planned to equip the Igla-V SUV ... at least there is no information about such plans in open sources until the project is closed."

& Chizh replied "that is our assumption"

Chizh also advised people trying to find evidence that such a Ka-50 existed : "I suggest not to bother much in finding the reasons for the appearance of (Igla) on the Ka-50ED, but simply to take it for granted. In this case, we wanted to."

Please take all the comments about switch positions and 'there is no production Ka-50, only on-going prototypes' as wishful thinking / imaginative justification / denial of reality (whichever you want to call it).

Agreed.

Also please stay polite here guys, I really don't want this to become yet another locked thread. :cry:

@Fri13 I don’t find realistic your guess about the third pylon. I don’t believe ED will do such unrealistic mod. The current wired for A-A in Ka-50 is linked to the current external pylons. Do you see in the last shared photos the third pylon light indicator, I don’t. Why you keep talking about third pylon?

Because Chizh has said in the Russian forums that there WILL be a third pylon. Right around where he said this would be a Ka-50ED.

There is one very good reason for the separate A-A weapon selection button to select the Igla for for firing that nobody is mentioning, but I'm sure it won't sway anyone's already entrenched positions, so I'll just save it for another conversation, although it shouldn't be too hard to research.

Well, I agree with Fri13, as it seems to me it is an emergency, fast mode to get to the Igla's and FIRE.

When you select the Igla, you only have 30-60 seconds before you have to fire it, when that time is up, it's dead weight. The controller will go to the next missile, and again you have 30-60 seconds to fire it, or it too becomes dead weight. I wonder if ED will model this? I should add that you can either select the missile twice for 30 seconds each time, or 60 seconds once. If you select it, but don't use it, it's dead weight and won't work until you land and the magical thing nobody is talking about gets replaced. For an explanation, I would suggest Google or just head on over to the Russian-language side of the forum.

Do you mean the coolant?

Yes, there are only two BCUs (Battery Coolant Units) installed per missile. Each is good for 30 seconds of use. I'm only guessing (that's okay because this thread is nothing but guesses) but the A-A switch probably pops a BCU. Or something along those lines.

Please take all the comments about switch positions and 'there is no production Ka-50, only on-going prototypes' as wishful thinking / imaginative justification / denial of reality (whichever you want to call it).

If you read the entire thread you'll see that there is no physical evidence that the Ka-50 ever had the systems the new version will have.

Funny, as there are photos of KA-50 having President-S, there are photos of it having that single switch box where CM box was in top right, there are photos of Kamov listing IGLA and R-73 as weapons loadouts. There are photos of R-73 hanging in, as well placed on the ground in weapons loadouts. There are photos of FLIR, glass cockpit, different panel than ABRIS....

There are all kinds physical evidence from all kind variations.

What is lacking, is everything in a one, in complete photo.

Add to that the fact that in the Russian forums ED have explicitly said that the addition of IGLAs is fictional, that no Ka-50 were made or flew with those systems (or with 3 sets of pylons, should the extra pylons appear).[\quote]

 

The has been said that they don't have that information, but they don't either have information to say otherwise denying them.

 

S.E.Bulba said to Chizh : " the “budget” daily modification of the Ka-50 (which is actually in our game) didn’t seem to have ever been planned to equip the Igla-V SUV ... at least there is no information about such plans in open sources until the project is closed."

& Chizh replied "that is our assumption"

 

Again in the air shows procedures has had IGLA mentioned as possibility for KA-50. So a sign for it, regardless that it can only be assumed that it isn't installed because they're ain't photos them in KA-50. But neither are 250kg bombs been mounted on it... Yet we have them in DCS.

 

Chizh also advised people trying to find evidence that such a Ka-50 existed : "I suggest not to bother much in finding the reasons for the appearance of (Igla) on the Ka-50ED, but simply to take it for granted. In this case, we wanted to."

 

And yet when people discuss about the possibilities, probabilities etc based the evidence elsewhere, you attack those people to claim that nothing such will ever happen.

 

The problem is, we do not know. ED doesn't know. Only one who knows by certainty is a Kamov engineer who has been part of the design process or other government expert who has witnessed the specifications for the order for production.

 

Because we do not know, doesn't mean it ain't so. It only means we do not know. It doesn't confirm anything else than that we do not know.

 

If we search for IGLA(-V) pictures, we can see it has been carried and installed on:

 

Mi-8

Mi-24

Mi-35

Mi-28

KA-52

 

So interestingly that KA-50 would have just been left to design phase and procedures but nothing else, even after glass cockpit upgrades?

Do you mean the coolant?

Pelteir coolers are magic ;)

When you select the Igla, you only have 30-60 seconds before you have to fire it, when that time is up, it's dead weight. The controller will go to the next missile, and again you have 30-60 seconds to fire it, or it too becomes dead weight. I wonder if ED will model this? I should add that you can either select the missile twice for 30 seconds each time, or 60 seconds once. If you select it, but don't use it, it's dead weight and won't work until you land and the magical thing nobody is talking about gets replaced. For an explanation, I would suggest Google or just head on over to the Russian-language side of the forum.

That 30-60 seconds lifetime is from battery, the missile doesn't get bad, battery does.

And IGLA-V has power from helicopter, not from battery.

When does the power from there end, is another question.

Well, I agree with Fri13, as it seems to me it is an emergency, fast mode to get to the Igla's and FIRE.

Logically it would be only way to select an A-A missile, as it ain't in inner or outer station. And you can't attach anything else on such station, why you don't need to care about it otherwise.

But that as well brings problem for down button, is it really "All Stations" or is it "both stations"?

And in modern KA-52 the collective didn't anymore have that hat selector switch for stations as it is done digitally. Same way as weapons configuration panel is removed.

Funny, as there are photos of KA-50 having President-S, there are photos of it having that single switch box where CM box was in top right, there are photos of Kamov listing IGLA and R-73 as weapons loadouts. There are photos of R-73 hanging in, as well placed on the ground in weapons loadouts. There are photos of FLIR, glass cockpit, different panel than ABRIS....

 

There are all kinds physical evidence from all kind variations.

 

What is lacking, is everything in a one, in complete photo.

There are photos of a lot of things at Airshows (& in the Rosoboronexport weapons export catalogues I have) that have never been made operational.

No-one - certainly not I - says that there was never an R-73 or a FLIR hung from a Kamov helicopter. What has not been demonstrated in any form beyond wishful thinking is that an R-73 (or for that matter an Igla) was ever mounted in such a way as to make it an operational weapon on a Ka-50. The most logical reason for no-one being able to find a 'complete photo' is that none exist. Simple logical consequence - there reason there's no proof it happened is that it never happened...

Add to that the fact that in the Russian forums ED have explicitly said that the addition of IGLAs is fictional, that no Ka-50 were made or flew with those systems (or with 3 sets of pylons, should the extra pylons appear).

 

The has been said that they don't have that information, but they don't either have information to say otherwise denying them.

Logically, this argument is the same as arguing that the Loch Ness monster exists because no-one has a photo of it not existing.

There is no evidence that the 'standard' Ka-50 (one without extra letters attached after the 50 or a '2' after the '5') has ever been able to employ A2A missiles.

S.E.Bulba said to Chizh : " the “budget” daily modification of the Ka-50 (which is actually in our game) didn’t seem to have ever been planned to equip the Igla-V SUV ... at least there is no information about such plans in open sources until the project is closed."

& Chizh replied "that is our assumption"

 

Again in the air shows procedures has had IGLA mentioned as possibility for KA-50. So a sign for it, regardless that it can only be assumed that it isn't installed because they're ain't photos them in KA-50. But neither are 250kg bombs been mounted on it... Yet we have them in DCS.

If appearing at an airshow or in an export catalogue was proof that working examples existed, you'd still have Moskit missiles on your Su-33, and EASA radars in your Su-27

And yet when people discuss about the possibilities, probabilities etc based the evidence elsewhere, you attack those people to claim that nothing such will ever happen.

No, I think it's a bad idea, but I think E.D. will add features that never existed to make a new module a commercially viable product.

I realise some people will think it's a great idea - as I said - I disagree, and am happy to discuss why.

What I'm not happy with is being told that the unrealistic is realistic.

The problem is, we do not know. ED doesn't know. Only one who knows by certainty is a Kamov engineer who has been part of the design process or other government expert who has witnessed the specifications for the order for production.

 

Because we do not know, doesn't mean it ain't so. It only means we do not know. It doesn't confirm anything else than that we do not know.

As I've said, If I take out "Igla on a Ka-50' from your argument, and replace it with 'Loch Ness monsteer in the Loch', it has the same amount of weight.

It's not logically possible to prove something doesn't exist (See Black Swans), only that something does exist (See Black Swans).

The burden of proof is on the person saying it does exist, and there is no proof.

If we search for IGLA(-V) pictures, we can see it has been carried and installed on:

 

Mi-8

Mi-24

Mi-35

Mi-28

KA-52

 

So interestingly that KA-50 would have just been left to design phase and procedures but nothing else, even after glass cockpit upgrades?

interesting, but apparently the case

That 30-60 seconds lifetime is from battery, the missile doesn't get bad, battery does.

And IGLA-V has power from helicopter, not from battery.

 

When does the power from there end, is another question.

NOT CORRECT. The timing is how long the battery AND coolant lasts. Coolant is required for the seeker to...seek. Also I don't have any indication that the missile receives power from the aircraft, so I'm not sure that's the case, either. Just because something seems like it should work some way does not mean that it does. The launchers uses the same battery and coolant unit that the shoulder-fired version uses, just two per missile instead of one. The documentation for the launcher says that it's only good for 30/60 seconds. Whether that's because of battery or coolant is kind of irrelevant. Once you select A-A you have 30 seconds to engage your target, maybe 60 seconds depending on how you activate the second BCU. After that 60 seconds is up for all the missiles in the launcher, you might as well jettison them.

About president-s complex is not a fictional system for Ka-50. IRL Ka-50 was in the development of President-s. So is not unrealistic. See last minutes of this video

Hey i found some interesting stuff, in my opinion..:

1. they will not make third pylon for A-A Igla missiles why ?

see ? Iglas and where are they mounted ?

2. pilot talk about A-A combat and helmet mounted device, and A-A missiles

NOT CORRECT. The timing is how long the battery AND coolant lasts. Coolant is required for the seeker to...seek. Also I don't have any indication that the missile receives power from the aircraft, so I'm not sure that's the case, either.

The rack for mounting multiple IGLAs offers possibility to use external coolant and battery source, other than the batteries itself mounted on rear, but that makes the platform more difficult.

The typical mounting is that you have two thermal batteries per missile then instead one, and you can store the grip elsewhere. And any given point you can detach the launcher tube, remove a unused battery from rack and get usable shoulder fired missile as all parts are with you.

The same allows to make a easy SAM platforms like get the missiles attached to car, raised platform, boat etc as you don't need to have any external power or coolant as you use thermal batteries itself.

What I don't know is that does the batteries share between both launchers or are they tied to their corresponding sides (left/right).

Just because something seems like it should work some way does not mean that it does.

Just because you don't know, doesn't mean it doesn't.

The launchers uses the same battery and coolant unit that the shoulder-fired version uses, just two per missile instead of one.

Yes, and option to use external sources as well instead batteries.

The documentation for the launcher says that it's only good for 30/60 seconds. Whether that's because of battery or coolant is kind of irrelevant. Once you select A-A you have 30 seconds to engage your target, maybe 60 seconds depending on how you activate the second BCU. After that 60 seconds is up for all the missiles in the launcher, you might as well jettison them.

You don't Jettison them, as the launcher and missile itself doesn't die. You only need new source for thermal batteries. And the single battery is guaranteed to have only 15 seconds, rest is on the clock changes.

Missiles itself are serviceable. Even in training we were required to be able replace the battery in 15 seconds.

So dropping launchers because you wasted batteries is stupid. Same thing is to start aiming it if you can't guarantee launch in 7-10 seconds from the trigger, as IIRC it takes 6 seconds to get power and signal for lock.

That makes it challenging to position MANPADS patrols as there ain't always such positions where team has good visibility and clear line of sight to take lead for launch etc.

And targeting attack helicopters that pop-up behind cover or low flying aircraft that speeds past you is almost waste of time.

That is why I don't wish IGLA to KA-50 because it is useless in most scenarios. I want a actually working contrast-based tracking to Shkval and fragmentation sleeve with proximity fuze for Vikhr and be able use Vikhr as intended.

The time it takes to get IGLA aimed, locked and launched is more than I can get Vikhr locked to even a F/A-18C at sky at 3km distance and launch at it and down it.

And if I am going to fly with 12 Vikhr, I will always take them instead 4 IGLAS.

Hey i found some interesting stuff, in my opinion..:

1. they will not make third pylon for A-A Igla missiles why ?

As there is no photo of KA-50 with IGLA like KA-52 has, as well no photo of KA-50 with third pylon like KA-50-2 and later KA-52.

There are all the parts, all the systems but none is in the one exact KA-50.

So what ED does is that they take functional systems and makes educated guess how to implement them in manner how KA-50 was planned to be.

--

I usually post from my phone so please excuse any typos, inappropriate punctuation and capitalization, missing words and general lack of cohesion and sense in my posts.....

Igla is shot and forget, no comparison with Vikhr in A-A engagement.

About R-73 in choppers. It is too expensive for a low probability A-A encounter.

The time it takes to get IGLA aimed, locked and launched is more than I can get Vikhr locked to even a F/A-18C at sky at 3km distance and launch at it and down it..

Igla is pretty good for that. Ka-50 was a test prototype for Ka-52, maybe igla was really tested but never implemented at the beginning probably because the weapon was not ready at this moment, I mean The improved igla for this task. If you talk about the early 90’s igla then was not reliable for choppers. That’s why the did full implementation for the time on Ka-52