Black Shark 3?

I don't know sincerely if it never was done for the 3 pylons.

Understand my point :

Perhaps during the Ka-52 developement, as they intended to put a 3 pylons wing, they decided to start testing this configuration with a Kamov-50 ? After all, it's only changing the wings and the Ka-50 was in the end a bit made for this kind of things : testing features for the next KA-52 ?

I mean, it is not because you don't find photos on google that this never existed. I sincerely don't know and ED has better sources than the ones you'll ever get on your side...

Too, Kamov-50 production was to be started again in the 2000', perhaps in this production version was a 3 pylon wing planned, which would make sense for maintenance purpose as both Ka-50 and 52 would share as many components as possible ? Actually, it's quite obvious for me that they would have taken such decision.

My personal opinion is that probably a 3 pylons wing ka-50 never flew, but it probably started to be produced or was used for ground testing in the factory, and right in the middle of the production they decided to directly swap the frames to ka-52 variant.

So well, if it was like this, it probably wouldn't be realistic to see it fly, but the only lacking thing was some factory time to get it in the airs... Because the aircraft itself would fly very well, even with 10 pylons ^^ ^^

Ah, and a last thing, tbh with you : Probably you on the ED forums think that it is not realistic and it's not normal. But for most users, the famous "silent majority", it is a very much welcome update, sincerely, whoever I talk to who flies it doesn't say "bah not realistic", he says "this is exactly what I needed and hoped for", and it is very egoist of you to ask for it to do not be made like this, because you represent your sole opinion, and usually only the angry people make noise. (Don't take it as a lack of respect, it's simply an empiric truth that mostly unhappy people post on ED forums :p)

And you know, you can think if you want that DCS modules are very realistic etc. Truth is that for kinda every relatively complex modules, there are simplifications, differences, or even sometimes things invented. Look at the D2M on the M2K as a good example. It simply never existed on the French 2000-C. Still I don't see people thinking "Oh my god the day they decided to put this, we lost something". They are pretty happy to have it actually. Same for being able to carry bombs and missiles or rockets at the same time. It never was able to do it because of its computer limitations. And I'm 100% sure you could find such thing for the F/A-18, the F-14, the Gazelle (For this one I'm extremely sure) etc.

It's only a game guys. I understand that it's a passion for you, as well as for me, but not everyone lives his passion the same way with the same philosophy. Does it mean that there are the "true" simmers and the "false" ones ?

@Dudikoff : I don't think. The aircraft you're talking about was set up like this for "show" purpose. It's quite usual during conventions and meetings so the customer can directly see all the available weaponry. A very funny example was the Eurofighter who flew for an entire decade during meetings with weaponry it couldn't even release ^^ I don't know after all if a Ka-52 can be asymetric (although even on exercise they never are, at least with 2 types of weapons, fuel tanks are a different thing), but I'm pretty sure that the Kamov PrPnk cannot handle such configuration because it is limited, just like the M2K above. And finally, well, if you get 6 pylons, you're a strange guy if you manage to still need for an asymetric configuration lol

Nicolas

Well said Dimitriov!

Yes, well said Dimitriov. Probably one of the better posts I've seen yet. Agree with pretty much everything you said. I've been flying sims since before Falcon III. There's ALWAYS going to be a few things that can't be quite confirmed, or were probably an educated guess. Because otherwise, the sim's gonna suck. And your going to have a lot of non-functional systems. And furthermore, those who don't want changes on the Shark, aren't going to have to pay for them. So pretty much win/win.

I have to admit though, the biggest thing I have taken away from the debates here, is that my focus in change has been shifted by the arguments of others. I now think the main problem of this copter is the simulation of the Shkval. It's pretty bad. We really need to question ED in whether it is being accurately simulated. And if so, would it have been upgraded by now, like the wings? Is it this bad on the Ka-52? I can't lock up helicopters that are black outlined against a clear light blue sky, at 8km. Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, Lock, every few seconds. Nothing. And it seems to vary wildly. Sometimes, the Shkval does ok. Others, like above. Asked this in the Russian forum. 86 views but now answers. Probably because my Russian is pretty horrible. :p Though I put in English as well. Hoping for an answer from Chizh or one of the other producers, as they don't ever seem to come into the English forums.

That, and we really need FLIR. There has already been the Ka-50N, Ka-50sh. And I don't want to pay for a Black Shark 4 to get it later.

Love your "donation sig", Dudikoff. Maybe I should get one of those too. Then I can just buy ED. :P

Well, actually, I don't know for the Ka-52 optics.

But you have to see that the real shkval is an old system. I would be very surprised that it would be able to track a target from more than 6 km. Is it modeled accurately ? Well if it was, you would have loads of issues using it because of how luminosity variates during the day. There would be parasites all across the screen if it's too dark, and night would look like a winter storm ^^ So this part... Well, I really don't know and don't ask them too much because if they take it seriously you're going to get the real thing. Question is : Do you really want to get the real made in CCCP electronic system from 1985 ? ^^

So we would need for a FLIR. But well, sincerely on this, not even on a realistic or not way of thinking, I'm well used to the Shkval limitations so it doesn't disturb be a lot. Still understand that it is not the case for everyone. But I analyse your issues with air targets as a lack of practice because during my flight "career" in PVP I shot down many many helicopters, fighters, CAS planes. One example is an F-15C, he missed me on the first pass, went above me, I took 30 degrees pitch, locked, shot 2 vikhrs which hit him right before I started falling backward. Incredibly, he was intact... until I saw him crash, I killed his pilot ^^ The whole action lasted for about 10 seconds. You have to train to be able to react, as fast as this without mistake, this is the real point I think. I train often for such thing, even asking to my squad fighters pilot to fight me. I spend most of the fight time having a lock on them, which is not so simple on mach 1 Mirage 6 km away. So well, IMO, for this, train.

Still a FLIR would indeed be a nice addition.

Oh my god but what am I saying ? IT WOULDN'T BE REALISTIC BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE IT ON GOOGLE ! SATAN !

:p

Nicolas

Nice dimitrov keep killing fighters for the both of us ;)

I suppose it's important to point out something to both sides of the debate...

To those who are pushing hard for a 100% "as realistic as we can prove" simulation of a real existing KA-50, and to those pushing for a little bit of fuzzy grey area that will give us a better, more useful KA-50...

As I understand there will be a switch in the ME that will allow or dis-allow either version... or at least the "ED" version. I totally understand the sim purist point of view... For sure... but I also see why people would want something that's an upgrade. Real or not. It's something new to play with and something more powerful to go blow stuff up with. What's not to like? If you're into the sim side of it... Use the old shark and/or don't load Igla's or the third pylon... everyone wins. I mean... I get that "choosing" not to load something up is different from it being a restriction, but seriously...

You're not flying a helicopter.

There are already quite a number of concessions you're making towards reality to just get in a sim and take off.

I say let us have our cake and eat it too :).

I'm a hardcore 'want realism' but I have no illusions that many compromises aren't made here both obvious and subtle. As I've said before, if people REALLY want the real deal, they should enlist, because that's the only way they'll get it. DCS, BMS, insert game, they aren't 1 to 1 replicas. Just the reality. Voice an opinion, sure, but it's not sky falling serious ) Kamov with Igla is no worse than A-10 with nerfed engines and mavericks. Tis only a game.

Yep. I see it as a win / win situation.

So, as to the Shkval, I guess it's somewhat realistic to 1980's standard. FLIR would be SOOOO nice.

x

After playing for a few hours today, I am reminded of how bad the EO is. And I wonder is it supposed to be this bad? Is this how bad Russian EO is? I doubt that.

You can get a lock well to a helicopters or aircrafts, if you lock on specific part of them.

Like a tail boom or a engine. But that you can't lock on the whole aircraft makes it stupid.

So, an aircraft against clear sky (extremely perfect contrasts) and no lock.

But from same distance if you can lock to tiny detail in them by using Shkval smallest gate size, boom you are locked!

What the Shkval should do is just get lock off the strongest contrasts and track the target shape by comparing the image to the previous ones and locked.

Like example how does 500Kr EO targeting work, comparing target image and surrounding while tracking, and many other cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles.

As Vikhr are just dumb missiles, cheap to make. All logic is in Shkval.

At least they would have made Shkval stabilized so you can without lock launch and aim, like they do anyways for training purpose.

You can see same for a few rare videos about Shkval, as for newer from Mi-28N etc.

I was talking about a KA-52 data linking a target to a KA-50 at night, the KA-50 pointing at that target and killing it without ever actually seeing it.

I wouldn't trust any datalink that much to target anything else than a nuclear bomb or other area effect bombs.

Idea is that datalink will get you to 100 meet area, where you can find it visually.

This is same thing as with any western "smart bombs", they do not hit as marketed in most cases unless it is a laser guided and not first generation.

Yup absolutely, the data-link accuracy is limited by the PrPNK INU one, and it is about 50m in best scenario.

You can get a lock well to a helicopters or aircrafts, if you lock on specific part of them.

 

Like a tail boom or a engine. But that you can't lock on the whole aircraft makes it stupid.

 

So, an aircraft against clear sky (extremely perfect contrasts) and no lock.

But from same distance if you can lock to tiny detail in them by using Shkval smallest gate size, boom you are locked!

 

LOL! Yeah, I've noticed that! Shrinking the gate as small as you can seems to get a better lock. Big gate around the heli = no lock!

Shkval is really screwed up. Maybe they don't want to have to come up with a real contrast system yet, but at least they could make it better than this.

Well, actually, I don't know for the Ka-52 optics.

 

But you have to see that the real shkval is an old system. I would be very surprised that it would be able to track a target from more than 6 km. Is it modeled accurately ?

There shouldn't be any problems in tracking at those ranges up to the specs of 10km range.

If the field of view is correct in the DCS and the Shkval tracking gate size, then there shouldn't be problem.

What I would like to know is the tracking function and TV adjustment controls (contrasts, brightness, gamma) as of those are in the tracking loop, then you adjust the Shkval for the tracking with those screen adjustments as well as TV itself.

The Shkval wasn't bad one, tracking worked well, but problem is lack of other features that Su-25T had like laser tracking (not so sure about that as some have written that LST is in all Shkval), and automatic targeting via programming for target area and lack of FLIR.

The is a video of the old Shkval performing automatic laser spotting and locking and off-center targeting too.

LOL! Yeah, I've noticed that! Shrinking the gate as small as you can seems to get a better lock. Big gate around the heli = no lock!

 

 

Shkval is really screwed up. Maybe they don't want to have to come up with a real contrast system yet, but at least they could make it better than this.

I would even love system if it would drop lock now and then, but not getting lock is like real frustration.

Same thing otherwise, A-10C having lock through trees or past buildings.

No problem that target is visible at all, you have the lock.

Su-25T auto snapping to target etc... Just no!

But nothing but contrast on sky and NO LOCK!

Automatically jumping gate to some random direction sleeving or Fighting back the system to get gate stay still.

I could pay BS3 just to get that balanced and fixed in all!

A 256x320 resolution at Max for Shkval, please!?

A ugly yellow tint and distortion on screen? Yes please!

Same thing for all targeting systems, no more 1024px resolution, no more perfect rendering etc. No more linked to mirrors quality!

I don't want Shkval to see in night or even after sunset!

Lots of these "small paper cuts" is what makes DCS annoying. Be it a perfect TGP pods or any camera stabilization gimbal limitless. Or how a OSA-AK can launch missile from the move to Target in just few seconds and it should have a 4 minute preparation time!

In a Russian forum a developer said that not all ka50's have a yellow tint, and he said that ours doesnt have it.

Ill try to find it, give me a sec.

Does the targeting system in the a10 also use contrast in real life?

Edit: cant find it sry

Same thing otherwise, A-10C having lock through trees or past buildings.

I haven't checked for a while, but while before release it did exactly that, at release it didn't - what it used to do at release (but might not now) was emulate a system that generated a track & if it lost lock (behind a building or tree) it would continue to track that path and speed, and if within some time period it found the object back in its view (because it re-appeared), would pick up the lock again.

If the tracked object changed direction or speed while out of sight, it would lose the target.

It is interesting that no one is bringing up the fact that the Igla was marketed as an option for the Ka-50... so it might not have been done, but the capacity was planned/considered/offered.

There are even some relatively credible reports that a version was offered with the RVV-AE/R-77 (albeit with a completely new cockpit/nose-section). So, the idea of wiring in an Igla seems pretty tame to me.

The thing that is controversial in my mind is having a third set of hardpoints! That is really sketchy! :)

"Aviation and Cosmonautics 2015 09" in the article "History of the Black Shark through the eyes of creators". ("Авиация и космонавтика 2015 09", "История Черной Акулы глазами создателей").

"Генеральный предположил, что в этих условиях необходимо модернизировать объектовую ПВО, одним из важных элементов которой мог бы стать вертолет-перехватчик. Задачей такой машины было бы оперативное реагирование на возникающую угрозу со стороны «нетрадиционных» средств воздушного нападения и уничтожение целей, применение по которым зенитно-ракетных систем и истребителей неоправданно или технически невозможно.

В этом качестве фирма «Камов» предлагала использовать истребитель Ка-50. Такой перехватчик предполагалось оснастить исключительно серийно производящимися системами. В качестве средства обнаружения воздушных целей должна была быть установлена БРЛС «Копье», разработанная и внедренная в серию ОАО «Фазотрон-НИИР», и оптико-электронная прицельная система ОАО «Геофизика-АРТ», аналогичная устанавливаемой на различных модификациях истребителей Су-27. В качестве средства поражения предлагалось использовать управляемые ракеты Р-77 класса «воздух–воздух», пусковые установки ПЗРК «Игла», а также перспективный многоцелевой комплекс управляемого оружия «Гермес» Тульского ПКБ. Вертолет-перехватчик с помощью 30-мм пушки 2А42 мог бы эффективно бороться с «нетрадиционными» средствами воздушного нападения, к которым С.В. Михеев отнес в первую очередь БПЛА, легкомоторные самолеты, парапланы и мотодельтапланы.

В письме особо обращалось внимание на то, что новый комплекс «Акулы» построен по схеме открытой архитектуры, что позволяло достаточно легко интегрировать вертолет-перехватчик в единое информационное поле противовоздушной обороны страны. Это обеспечивало оперативный взлет и вывод в район встречи с целью вертолета-перехватчика, а, следовательно, сокращало время реакции ПВО на возникшую воздушную угрозу. Немаловажным обстоятельством была возможность сопряжения БРЭО Ка-50 с потоком информации от самолетов дальнего радиолокационного обнаружения А-50 и проходивших в то время испытания вертолетов радиолокационного дозора Ка-35."

t is interesting that no one is bringing up the fact that the Igla was marketed as an option for the Ka-50... so it might not have been done, but the capacity was planned/considered/offered.

Yes, lets not encourage more fantasy aircraft eh ?

Sukhoi offered a variety of AESA radars for foreign buyers of the Su-27/30/xx, but didn't field them.

Oh no - now we'll have 50 pages of request for EASA radar on Su-27 :

Well... why not have some 4th or 5th generation lower-fidelity models as an option for those who want them?

The only time the Su-27 fired missiles in anger was an Ethiopian aircraft... does this mean that we shouldn't shoot air-to-air missiles from the Su-27 in any other theatre? The simulation inherently involves counter-factual scenarios which didn't happen...

Also, should nothing which is partially classified be modelled? Or can a few systems be partly made-up or left out entirely? Because if we require that all systems be modelled fully then we're talking about aircraft from the 1950s only...

What I'm saying, is there is a spectrum in the degree of how speculative the simulation is... there will always be speculation - the question is how much.

I for one am still a tiny bit annoyed that the "Su-39" with a Kopyo radar pod that ED made was never released to the public...

Since such a desicion went, can it have FLIR from Ka-50N / Ш? ;)

 

None. There is absolutely no information on it.

There is absolutely no information on the third pylon, either...

There is absolutely no information on the third pylon, either...

Yes, i know. Thats why its called ka50ED

I haven't checked for a while, but while before release it did exactly that, at release it didn't - what it used to do at release (but might not now) was emulate a system that generated a track & if it lost lock (behind a building or tree) it would continue to track that path and speed, and if within some time period it found the object back in its view (because it re-appeared), would pick up the lock again.

If the tracked object changed direction or speed while out of sight, it would lose the target.

Same with Su25T, autolocking target inside a forest etc...

I tested that A-10C in 2.5.3 version as I was not been flying out for a while and was surprised that was all there, like in 1.5 and 1.2.

It is interesting that no one is bringing up the fact that the Igla was marketed as an option for the Ka-50... so it might not have been done, but the capacity was planned/considered/offered.

 

There are even some relatively credible reports that a version was offered with the RVV-AE/R-77 (albeit with a completely new cockpit/nose-section). So, the idea of wiring in an Igla seems pretty tame to me.

 

The thing that is controversial in my mind is having a third set of hardpoints! That is really sketchy! :)

Check my posts about the questioning of the cockpit avionics etc.

We have A-A weapons stations selector in the hat, now as double for Vikhr targeting mode programming button A-A mode.

And we have odd translation for jettison A-A ordinance separated from Vikhr or others.

We as well have R-73 mounted on KA-50-2 and there is even photo of KA-50 having R-73 on ground under inner pylon.

There is mentions about IGLAs as third option for weapons, always carried next to Vikhr and rockets.

Many things does not make sense in the cockpit (something that some people takes as a sign that it is a dream for third pylon or demand for something that ain't confirmed) and that requires clarification from Kamov.

For a decade we had people saying that our KA-50 #25 was only a prototype, and doesn't have President-S or A-A weapons. While we had all in the cockpit, labeled "not implemented" or "no function".

And what we know from Kamov is that our #25 was to be upgraded to serial production standard, that ED didn't have back then when making Black Shark module in first place.

There is as well arguments that KA-50 can't launch big missiles like R-73 because it would cause gas problem with engine inlets.

Well, explain then what does a Kh-25 missile do there or S-8 or S-10 rocket pods firing all at once?

How about the huge double rotors above the engines, pushing all fresh air from top to below, on the engines?

So KA-50 can launch huge A-G missile, but not smaller A-A missile? Okay....

Personally I don't care at all about IGLAs or R-73 or third pylons. I want just the Shkval fixed and Vikhr fixed. As the Vikhr is more dangerous missile to anything else as it can intercept you as long you fly low and below Mach 1.2. and you can not counter or by any other means than radical maneuvering (meaning you can't attack at anything or concentrate on anything else) and KA-50 has 12 of those missiles to waste, not 2 or 4.

I want to know that what is the logic in the ka-50 engineers when they were designing the cockpit. What were changed for the serial production and how.

As our KA-50 #25 is from time before the production order.

Yes, lets not encourage more fantasy aircraft eh ?

Sukhoi offered a variety of AESA radars for foreign buyers of the Su-27/30/xx, but didn't field them.

Oh no - now we'll have 50 pages of request for EASA radar on Su-27 :

Su-30 is a Su-27... Same with Su-35 etc. All are Su-27 export names.

Our Su-27 is the very first serial production version, Su-27S. Everything else is just an upgrade, a big upgrade to it....

The IGLA has been offered as weapons load for various KA-50 versions, even presented in the airshow procedures.

It is not fantasy, but it is not confirmed either.

If the ka-50 can carry it, it should be there. If not, then not. But it is again question about wiring, not about politics or training.