Jump to content

Black Shark 3?


QuiGon

Recommended Posts

@fri13 about the Ka-52 as AFAC at night. Remember the Ka-50 carry the illumination S-8 rockets. Will be great get contacts vía datalink from Ka-52 and just shot illumination rockets to this marked position.

 

Great point!

 

 

I have not used those illumination rockets in the DCS after 2.0 Alpha. Always found those some way "unrealistic" as they illuminated so large area so clearly in 1.2.x.

 

But it is not such a "surprise" anymore for other parts than a camps/defence locations that anyways the enemy needs to hold.

 

Ka-52 can save you load of work and improve the situation awareness. The only ED should do is let Ka-52 AI be in the same Ka-50 group. Thinking about systems compatibility

 

I hope ED is going to do major overhaul in the group functionality when they get their RTS elements developed. As you can't have believable semi-realistic military operations with the current group functionality that is likely from the original Flanker.

 

As we need a command structure, the information network, the communication means and behavior, every unit having LOS and FOV and all that.

 

It would radically change the helicopters operational capability when you could actually surprise the targets as they can't see you on every direction all the time, and then if one unit in the group spots you, all knows you in few seconds based the skill level.

 

So adding all kind delays for communications times over radio or lack of it when in attack etc, will make helicopters far more dangerous as you can approach targets for over-fly or near fly-by with rocket and cannon runs.

 

It would be so nice to be able easily get over radio the AI give you the status and requests for assistance etc. Coordinates for attack, possible enemies etc. That you would be there to punch to PVI-800 for waypoints, or use ABRIS to find the town/city and then measure the distances from there to the location etc.

 

We are likely going to have a great next 3-5 years if ED gets things done well.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would love to see an AI Ka-52.

 

 

As for the Shkval, according to Chizh and Laivynas, it was eventually dumped.

 

Yes it was left behind, it was great system back in the 70-80's when it was designed and taken in use. But it just got quickly obsolete as you didn't get it flexible enough.

 

It is similar as with the AV-8B N/A own ARBS system that it shared from the A-4.

Both really limited by the any day, any weather requirement. But performed well otherwise.

 

 

It would make a lot of sense to have a Ka-50 with the Goes-451. This gives you FLIR and the same system the Ka-52 is using. I can't see running around using ancient spotting flares on a modern 2019 battlefield :megalol:, when you have an advanced Ka-52 sending you target data. Shooting blindly into the dark seems ridiculous and "fantasy".

 

Well, that was the point in the future, just like the Russian government stated as one of the production standard requirements to be. A FLIR, but Shkval couldn't support it well enough.

 

But the "old methods" shouldn't be looked down. Like in the cold war scenarios western observers were laughing how Soviets tank commanders used hand signals and flags to command tank platoons around etc. Questioning that didn't Soviets have even radios.

Well, they did have radios, but the benefit of the training and operation was that your communications can't be jammed, listened and it doesn't reveal your location to the enemy. Something that was done for the western ones (and likely reason why F-22 doesn't have datalink sharing capability to others).

 

Similar thing is example with the ground units requesting air support from a CAS. You can't be giving support from a 30 km range of the troops, you need to be just close to them seeing what is happening, listening their requests etc.

And when you are close-by anyways, you don't need any coordinates or laser markers etc. You have the map, the ground troops has the map. You need to know anyways where your supported troops are advancing and located. And all that is required in some situations is a visual markpoint to the pilot. Be it example a red smoke grenade thrown to mark your troops location, and then inform over radio the direction, distance and target type for the enemy.

 

Pilot should be able to spot your red smoke, know his own direction on the ground that where is north etc. And then they can already see the enemy general location at least, if not exactly the location.

 

And that is missing in the DCS. I rarely find any use for the S-8 rockets in KA-50 as most targets anyways are possible to be destroyed with the 30mm cannon. And then longer range and MBT targets is easier to deal with Vikhr. And that is why if anything I would swap for the IGLA, it would be the S-8 rocket pods.

 

It would be very nice to get the communications and the functionality to support troops that are transported by the Mi-8, get the rockets to be useful as there would be lots of infantry and firefights would be something else than a 30 vs 30 firing against each others in 10 second period and then end the fight.

 

Hovering in KA-50 nearby behind the forests and hills, observing advancements, engaging the spotted units etc.

 

Datalink not required for most of the time, but otherwise great.

 

Like best flying almost comes in KA-50 when you have 2-3 humans flying together.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let me as well add a Google translated message from Chizh.

 

Quote:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...&postcount=163

 

"Nobody hits science fiction and everything is done on the basis of real-world development and experiments.

As for the game, as always, everything is in the hands of the host. What kind of helicopters he will deliver will be."

 

On the basis of which you state "ED is doing not fantasy"

 

Let me give you another quote from Chizh replying to a comment that the aircraft to be modelled never existed:

 

:

Q1 / In all sources it is said that the Igla-V system of guided weapons (CWS) was planned to be equipped (according to earlier sources), and it seems they even equipped it (according to later sources) only the Ka-50Sh night-time modification. However, 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.

 

: R1.

This will be our assumption.

 

(...)

______________________________________

Chizh: 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.

 

So Chizh says there were never any plans to operationally equip Ka-50 with IGLA, there is no basis in fact for our modelling it, we do it because we want to.

 

E.D. are explicitly "doing fantasy". Not 'high fantasy', but fantasy nevertheless.

 

& Fri13 - if you're not asking for any of the fantasy features that are being added, you don't need to respond to my posts any more than S.E.Bulba does.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be so nice to be able easily get over radio the AI give you the status and requests for assistance etc. Coordinates for attack, possible enemies etc. That you would be there to punch to PVI-800 for waypoints, or use ABRIS to find the town/city and then measure the distances from there to the location etc.

 

We are likely going to have a great next 3-5 years if ED gets things done well.

 

Try this. Set a multiplayer short mission with two group of Ka-50, every one with his AI wingman

 

Test the mission with your buddies and test out the AI comm orders.

 

I did it long time ago and work perfect, I actually don’t know if work only for host, as I was the host that time. If work you actually can do that between Ka-50 AI in MP, so a interoperability between Ka-50 and Ka-52 in my opinion will be a nice new feature for Ka-50 3.0


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the basis of which you state "ED is doing not fantasy"

 

Let me give you another quote from Chizh replying to a comment that the aircraft to be modelled never existed:

 

 

So Chizh says there were never any plans to operationally equip Ka-50 with IGLA, there is no basis in fact for our modelling it, we do it because we want to.

 

E.D. are explicitly "doing fantasy". Not 'high fantasy', but fantasy nevertheless.

 

& Fri13 - if you're not asking for any of the fantasy features that are being added, you don't need to respond to my posts any more than S.E.Bulba does.

 

And none of those are about fantasy, but all educated guess based to valid sources and information.

 

IGLA-V system is READY.

KA-50 helicopter was developed FURTHER than KA-50 < 2006 time of access.

The Self-Defence suite is READY.

The FLIR systems were made READY.

Even the 3rd station wings were made READY.

 

It is literally a puzzle that ED is making from ready of the pieces, based the project designs.

 

The Russian government made order to Kamov that KA-50 was to be produced with: AA missiles, Improved Avionics, FLIR, Self-Defence suite etc.

 

All those things exist, but not in OUR KA-50 airframe at that time when ED had access.

 

Now you can twist as much you want, make what ever insults you want, but when all the building blocks are there, it is not "fantasy" when ED puts the pieces together by best of their knowledge.

 

The fantasy would be if the ED would start to add features that were never planned, designed or required.

 

Can you show us that there is any KA-50 with a FAB-250 or FAB-500 bombs? Can you?

If not, are you ready to remove those bombs from the KA-50 arsenal?

 

You still do not understand, that KA-50 project is classified. Why? Because it includes features from the KA-52 project. Just like I explained, Russian Ministry of Defence made order for advanced KA-50 and KA-52 that shares the systems as much as possible, but ended the funding for KA-50.

 

There was no need for KA-50 that has no radar and you can't sell single seat aircraft to countries that requires second pilot.

 

You are talking about fantasies, ED is talking about educated guesses from valid known sources.

 

If you can proof that no KA-52 ever has had any IGLA system in board,

If you can proof that no KA-50 project models (that includes all KA-50-2, KA-52's etc) has had R-73 on board or a third station.

If you can proof that no advancements were made to KA-50 since ED had access to it < 2006...

If you can proof that there is no clues in the avionics for AA weapons...

 

You are proofing that ED is making fantasy.

 

 

This is again one of those problems people have, like with the F/A-18C and F-16C, some people are insisting that specific weapon or feature is not allowed to be in the DCS, only because the operators did not include it in their weapons load, regardless that the weapon/feature was tested, validated, and made possible. But because it is a peace time, it is not used, but on the war time, it could be used. So because someone wrote the order of the allowed ordinance, unauthorizing the LAU-88, doesn't mean that it is not able to mount it, use it.

 

That is completely the mission / campaign designer decision to include it, or leave it out.

 

Because I can lift 145kg from the bench, it doesn't mean that I am carrying 50kg all the time on my back because I just can. No, it just means that I have capability to use my strength as much as that in the situations when it requires it.

 

So because one paper pusher does the decision that something is not to be authorized in operational use, doesn't mean that it is not technically possible and would be used if the situation calls for it.

 

We can follow the same logic as that. We need to disable the possibility of jettison the fuel tanks when you carry bombs in F-16.

 

https://youtu.be/PeHc4vbQrNY?t=918

 

Lets look at the other interesting operational authorization:

 

 

If we ever are going to get a F-111, I am expecting you to yell everyone that no one is allowed to use flares! It had not been trained for! It was unauthorized to launch a flare!

 

Or maybe we need to understand a few things:

 

  1. You do not go to fight with all ordnance you can carry
  2. You do not go to fight with possible weapons for every scenario you can face

 

Meaning, you can be a combat vet pilot that has never used specific weapon, that the aircraft has been designed to carry. You can be a instructor pilot that has never launched a flare.

You can be loading the aircrafts as how many years, never performing the aircraft capable weapons loadout, because the war campaign success does not require such a configuration.

 

This is the same thing as with example AH-64 Apache and Stringers. Designed to carry and launch Stinger missiles. Well, USA doesn't use them, doesn't authorize to carry those. Japan does authorize them and carry them. And again in the AH-64E upgrade USA was authorized to carry Stringers. Why the change that was previously disallowed? The drones... A new era of the drones.

 

You can not use cannon against drones because you can't control the background in all situations. And they can be fast, agile and small, so you need updated Stinger that is able to be shot at small drones from couple kilometer distances.

 

Situation changed => authorization changed => Operational use changed.

 

So what would a Russia do if they have KA-50's in production, and they would be facing a well equipped army attacking inside their borders, and they have capability to field IGLA? Would they just ignore them and be "Naeh... We are not authorized to do so!".

 

As you do not understand that there are commands, that are not reflecting the actual capabilities and realities what could be done. Only because someone at the top says "No".

 

And that "No" can not just be about specific weapon loadout that was tested and made possible, but it can be a complete doctrine. USA knows that very well from the Vietnam, not allowed to engage the targets unless someone in Washington allowed it.

Constantly fighting both hands behind their backs.

 

There are always bigger picture, the strategy to lure enemies to operate in areas that they consider save etc. That a individual soldiers do not see.

 

In KA-50 and IGLA, why to field them if they are not in the public operational use? Why if the KA-52 is in the operation, to field them in the KA-50 if they are not required by the times the KA-50's are in flight? Just to carry them to the airshows to show KA-50 has IGLA mounted?

Where were the FAB-250 and FAB-500 bombs again fielded in the airshows?

 

 

Does the ED have access to the KAMOV engineers who worked with the latest KA-50 upgrades and its weapons systems? As even test pilots can be left in the dark of the future testing. It is the project managers that knows what is wanted, allowed, possible and to be done. They are the ones that sits in the designing tables, not the test pilots. Not the normal pilots. Not the personnel loading the weapons on the aircrafts.

If some other country would have bought the KA-50, they can field other weapons that the Russia doesn't. We can't know that unless you get someone from the KAMOV that has directly worked with the technical functions of the KA-50 to state that something is impossible, because it has been stated that KA-50 project purpose was to be able carry A-A missiles, project presented the system capable for that, and they are doing so in the project.

 

So don't be a fool and think that if KA-50 would be produced today, that it would be like our KA-50 today, without any of the upgrades that were even made over two decades ago!

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same thing as with example AH-64 Apache and Stringers. Designed to carry and launch Stinger missiles. Well, USA doesn't use them, doesn't authorize to carry those. Japan does authorize them and carry them. And again in the AH-64E upgrade USA was authorized to carry Stringers. Why the change that was previously disallowed? The drones... A new era of the drones.

 

You didn't mention this but you mean the just the AH-64D and E, not the A. And they were absolutely authorized to carry them from day one, they just never had a requirement to do so. Unlike other countries (Japan/Korea/etc.) where there was a requirement right out the gate to have them equipped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....It is interesting that we are arguing about whether or not pre-production aircraft have been conclusively shown in published photographs to have had an advertised capability ...that is the "fantasy vs. not-fantasy contention".

 

We know at least a couple of prototypes didn't have the capability... (just as some of the prototypes undoubtedly didn't carry weapons)... but the rest is potentially speculation. While we're speculating about a lack of capability etc. I thought I'd add a speculation:

 

What if part of the original project was marketing for Kamov/ROSOBORON to show the world that the single seat helicopter works? What if Kamov is secretly supporting the MWS and air-to-air upgrades for BS3 as updated advertising?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I use Google Translate.

And none of those are about fantasy, but all educated guess based to valid sources and information.

 

IGLA-V system is READY.

KA-50 helicopter was developed FURTHER than KA-50 < 2006 time of access.

The Self-Defence suite is READY.

The FLIR systems were made READY.

Even the 3rd station wings were made READY…

Instead of a 1000 words, it is common in technical communities to operate with documentary sources that prove information. Leave an amateurish blah blah blah to untrained ears. Can you cite at least one documentary source to confirm your original research?

 

… Can you show us that there is any KA-50 with a FAB-250 or FAB-500 bombs? Can you?

If not, are you ready to remove those bombs from the KA-50 arsenal?..

Weta43 doesn't need to prove anything. For this there are reliable sources, for example: ISBN 5-7656-0005-0 (this book describes in detail the construction of the Ka-50, and it has an abbreviated translation into English); Aviation & Time No.2/2005 (p.4–21 + inset); ISSN 1682-7759 (No.7–12/2014, No.1–4, 6–9, 11–12/2015, No.1/2016); etc.

 

Do you think that the authors of these sources are wrong, despite the fact that they wrote their works in direct cooperation with the JSC Kamov? Ok, then I wish you good luck, you can try to prove it to them.

 

<…>

If you can proof that no KA-52 ever has had any IGLA system in board,

If you can proof that no KA-50 project models (that includes all KA-50-2, KA-52's etc) has had R-73 on board or a third station.

If you can proof that no advancements were made to KA-50 since ED had access to it < 2006...

If you can proof that there is no clues in the avionics for AA weapons…

Do you at least understand that you are trying to cook fish and meat in one pot and combine incompatible things?

 

The Ka-50-2 is a full-size model, devoid of functionality. The Ka-50 and the Ka-52 only have a similar tail section, but these are completely different helicopters in their ′insides′.

  • The Ka-50 has an old the PrPNK-80 Rubicon (K-041) piloting, navigation and targeting system [ISBN 5-7656-0005-0, p.84–87], while the Ka-52 has the K-806 Argument-52 piloting, navigation and targeting system of the 5th generation [ISSN 1682-7759, No.9/2015, p.39–41], also known as Argument-2000 [Expert.ru].
     
     
  • These piloting, navigation and targeting systems have their own subsystems, such as weapon systems. On the Ka-50 is the system SUO-800M [ISBN 5-7656-0005-0, p.86]. The Ka-52 has its own weapon system, the name of which for me is still unknown.
     
     
  • The Ka-50 and Ka-52 differ in their sighting system, which is also a subsystem of the piloting, navigation and targeting system. The Ka-50 was equipped with the I-251V Shkval-V automatic TV sight [ISBN 5-7656-0005-0, p.84–85], while the Ka-52 was equipped with the GOES-451 day-and-night surveillance and sight system [ISSN 1682-7759, No.9/2015, p.39–41].
     
     
  • The Ka-50 was equipped with the ATGW 9K121 Vikhr, while the Ka-52 was equipped with the ATGW 9K113U Shturm-VU. On the Ka-52 is suspended of the Strelets set of control equipment and launch modules with 9M342 Igla-S missiles, while you will not find any mention of the presence of this system on the Ka-50.

And so it is possible to continue indefinitely enumerate the differences between these two helicopters, up to the piloting and navigation system, etc. Moreover, by the way, the latter is also a subsystem of the piloting, navigation and targeting system, which differs in these helicopters in the same way as the day at night.

 

And you then, relying only on your conjectures and hypotheses, want to convince everyone that if something is installed on the Ka-52, then it could work with the same success on the Ka-50? If I were you, I would not be so confident in my fantasies. :)

 

Original in Russian

And none of those are about fantasy, but all educated guess based to valid sources and information.

 

IGLA-V system is READY.

KA-50 helicopter was developed FURTHER than KA-50 < 2006 time of access.

The Self-Defence suite is READY.

The FLIR systems were made READY.

Even the 3rd station wings were made READY…

Вместо 1000 слов, в технических сообществах принято оперировать документальными источниками, которые доказывают информацию. Дилетантское бла-бла-бла оставьте для неискушённых ушей. Вы можете привести хоть один документальный источник, чтобы подтвердить ваши оригинальные исследования?

 

… Can you show us that there is any KA-50 with a FAB-250 or FAB-500 bombs? Can you?

If not, are you ready to remove those bombs from the KA-50 arsenal?..

Weta43 не нужно ничего доказывать. Для этого существуют авторитетные источники, например: ISBN 5-7656-0005-0 (данная книга наиболее детально описывает конструкцию Ка-50, и в ней имеется сокращённый перевод на английский язык); «Авиация и Время» №2/2005 (стр.4–21 + вкладка); ISSN 1682-7759 (№7–12/2014, №1–4, 6–9, 11–12/2015, №1/2016); и т.д.

 

Считаете, что авторы данных источников не правы, несмотря на то, что они писали свои работы при непосредственном сотрудничестве с ОАО «Камов»? Ok, тогда я желаю Вам удачи, можете попытаться им это доказать.

 

<…>

If you can proof that no KA-52 ever has had any IGLA system in board,

If you can proof that no KA-50 project models (that includes all KA-50-2, KA-52's etc) has had R-73 on board or a third station.

If you can proof that no advancements were made to KA-50 since ED had access to it < 2006...

If you can proof that there is no clues in the avionics for AA weapons…

Вы хоть понимаете, что пытаетесь сварить в одной кастрюле рыбу и мясо, и совместить несовместимые вещи?

 

Ка-50-2 – это полноразмерный макет, лишённый функциональности. Ка-50 и Ка-52 только имеют схожую хвостовую часть, однако это совершенно разные вертолёты по своим «внутренностям».

  • Ка-50 имеет старый прицельно-пилотажно-навигационный комплекс ПрПНК-80 «Рубикон» (К-041) [ISBN 5-7656-0005-0, стр.84–87], в то время как Ка-52 имеет прицельно-пилотажно-навигационный комплекс 5-го поколения К-806 «Аргумент-52» [ISSN 1682-7759, №9/2015, стр.39–41], также известный как «Аргумент-2000» [Expert.ru].
     
     
  • Данные прицельно-пилотажно-навигационные комплексы имеют свои подсистемы, например систему управления вооружением. На Ка-50 это система СУО-800М [ISBN 5-7656-0005-0, стр.86]. На Ка-52 стоит своя система управления вооружением, наименование которой лично для меня пока остаётся неизвестным.
     
     
  • Ка-50 и Ка-52 различаются своим прицельным комплексом, который также является подсистемой прицельно-пилотажно-навигационного комплекса. На Ка-50 стояла автоматическая телевизионная система И-251В «Шквал-В» [ISBN 5-7656-0005-0, стр.84–85], в то время как на Ка-52 стоит круглосуточная обзорно-прицельная система ГОЭС-451 [ISSN 1682-7759, №9/2015, стр.39–41].
     
     
  • Ка-50 был оснащён ПТРК 9К121 «Вихрь», в то время как Ка-52 оснащён ПТРК 9К113У «Штурм-ВУ». На Ка-52 подвешивают комплект аппаратуры и пусковых модулей «Стрелец» с ракетами 9М342 «Игла-С», в то время как о присутствии данной системе на Ка-50 Вы вообще ни в каких источниках упоминания не найдёте.

И так можно продолжать до бесконечности перечислять различия между этими двумя вертолётами, вплоть до пилотажно-навигационного комплекса и т.д. Причём последний кстати также является подсистемой прицельно-пилотажно-навигационного комплекса, который на данных вертолётах различается так же, как день c ночью.

 

И Вы после этого, опираясь лишь на свои домыслы и гипотезы, хотите всех убедить в том, что если что-либо установлено на Ка-52, то это с тем же успехом могло работать и на Ка-50? На Вашем месте я бы не был столь самоуверен в своих фантазиях. :)

 


Edited by S.E.Bulba
correction.

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I'm just missing the point...

 

I'm not sure that anyone is arguing that a KA-50 in "ED" configuration actually existed. Plenty are arguing that it did NOT exist for sure, and that's understandable. It didn't.

 

But...

 

That's not the point that the people who are arguing that there should be a KA-50ED in game are making.

 

They're making the point that a KA-50 in the "ED" configuration was likely a primary goal of the KA-50 project, but it never quite came to fruition and was in large part turned into the KA-52. Or at least the KA-52 was designed HEAVILY based on what was learned in the KA-50 project.

 

 

So... There are a lot of straw men here.

 

 

Just because some are happy that the KA-50ED will be made in DCS doesn't mean those same people should or can prove that there ever was a KA-50 configured in this way. Again... There wasn't.

 

 

The discussion should simply be about whether or not the KA-50ED was likely the design goal of the project.

 

 

Me... I feel like it's very likely that it was. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support that claim.

 

There is also a complete lack of evidence that they ever made one that met the goals of the project...

 

BUT THAT'S OK.

 

 

It's not like it's an F32 with Aim240's and lasers. :)

 

It's just an attack chopper that was VERY PROBABLY what the Russians would have wanted in an attack chopper should they have been able to finish the project.

 

 

I really don't see why people are so opposed to that... as long as ED don't make other leaps that are larger :)

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ka-50 was equipped with the ATGW 9K121 Vikhr, while the Ka-52 was equipped with the ATGW 9K113U Shturm-VU. On the Ka-52 is suspended of the Strelets set of control equipment and launch modules with 9M342 Igla-S missiles, while you will not find any mention of the presence of this system on the Ka-50.

 

A quick internet search would show that Ka-52 has also carried the Vikhr... and that modern production versions are using Hermes-A missiles...

 

...So, yeah, there is a production series that can carry Shturm, a production series carrying Hermes, and at least the early versions could carry the Vikhr...


Edited by Avimimus
Trying to be more polite
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick internet search would show that Ka-52 has also carried the Vikhr... and that modern production versions are using Hermes-A missiles...

 

...So, yeah, there is a production series that can carry Shturm, a production series carrying Hermes, and at least the early versions could carry the Vikhr...

Theoretically, the Ka-52 can use any laser-guided ATGM, provided that they are included in the helicopter’s weapon system. In real life, practically, Hermes and Vikhr are still being finalized and tested. They are not in the combat units of the Russian army aviation.

 

You may not believe me, but you may believe the Internet. However, believe me, regardless of this, the reality will not change. :)

 

Original in Russian

 

Теоретически Ка-52 может применять любые ПТУР с лазерным наведением, при условии, что они при этом включены в систему управления вооружением вертолёта. В реале же, практически, «Гермес» и «Вихрь» ещё только дорабатываются и испытываются. Их нет в строевых частях российской армейской авиации.

 

Вы можете не верить мне, но зато можете верить Интернету. Однако поверьте мне, в независимости от этого реальность не изменится. :)

 


Edited by S.E.Bulba
update.

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. The Shturm/Ataka and Hermes both use radio command guidance (at least in part)... with the newest versions of the Shturm using terminal laser guidance for improved accuracy at range. However, the Vikhr 9k121/APU-6 uses laser beam riding for the entire flight - which would seem to be a simpler system and one that would be in place - even in the earlier production? I always assumed it was designed around the 9k121 and these other newer systems were introduced later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. The Shturm/Ataka and Hermes both use radio command guidance (at least in part)... with the newest versions of the Shturm using terminal laser guidance for improved accuracy at range. However, the Vikhr 9k121/APU-6 uses laser beam riding for the entire flight - which would seem to be a simpler system and one that would be in place - even in the earlier production? I always assumed it was designed around the 9k121 and these other newer systems were introduced later.

The ATGM 9M120-1 (9M120-1F) Ataka modification, which is part of the ATGW Shturm-VU, has laser guidance throughout the entire flight path, similar to the ATGM Vikhr. It was developed as a replacement for the ATGM Vikhr, which probably still cannot find solutions to some problems, despite the fact that this ATGM was tested in combat operations in Syria.

 

In addition, the ATGM Ataka and the ATGM Vikhr have almost the same armor penetration (800mm), however the ATGM Ataka is much cheaper because of its poorer speed characteristics and shorter range.

 

Original in Russian

 

Модификация ПТУР 9М120-1 (9М120-1Ф) «Атака», которая входит в состав комплекса «Штурм-ВУ», имеет лазерное наведение на всём пути полёта, аналогично ПТУР «Вихрь». Она и была разработана как замена ПТУР «Вихрь», на котором вероятно до сих пор не могут найти решения некоторым проблемам, несмотря на то, что данная противотанковая ракета испытывалась в боевых действиях в Сирии.

 

Кроме того ПТУР «Атака» и ПТУР «Вихрь» имеют практически одинаковую бронепробиваемость (800 мм), однако ПТУР «Атака» значительно дешевле из-за своих более худших скоростных характеристик и меньшей дальности действия.

 

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@M1 - Exactly. We want what should have been, as close to reality as we can come.

 

 

Fri puts it best. The pieces are all there, they just need to be put together into one Ka-50.

 

 

Yeah... thanks for the vote of confidence but I feel like you've said that you'd like to see FLIR and R73's on the thing so...

 

 

I'm not sure I'm close to your point of view or not. Key part of the point being "close to reality". Seems to me your point of view would be that maybe we should put 120's on the Hog... I mean... they existed at the same time right? Likely someone in the US Mil at some point thought "Hey that'd be cool" so from your earlier comments I feel that you think we should have that in DCS...

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah... thanks for the vote of confidence but I feel like you've said that you'd like to see FLIR and R73's on the thing so...

 

Some would take every upgrade ED throws at them. They prefer to dominate, rather than simulate.

Valve Index | RTX 3070 Ti (Mobile) | i7-12700H @ 2.7GHz | 16GB RAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some would take every upgrade ED throws at them. They prefer to dominate, rather than simulate.

 

Yep.

 

I'm all for well thought out "additions to reality" like we seem to be gettting with the KA-50ED :)... but yeah... We don't need three engined F32's with Aim240's on the canopy... AKA... KA-50 with R73.

 

The problem with the suggestion isn't exactly simple...

 

The problem is that when someone says "I think someone important said maybe they'd put an R73 on a KA-50... Prove me wrong, and we should do the same because they were considering it"... is that then it sets the ball in the wrong place. There shouldn't need to be complete and utter proof that something certainly existed for sure, that they've actually done something, to decide that it's reasonably likely that it was indeed the ACTUAL plan that could have REALLY happened. Of course the general wanted an R73 on the KA50. Everyone in the RU Mil did. Duh. But that doesn't mean it was likely or feasible. It's called a "pie in the sky".

 

We don't want pies in the DCS skies.

 

We want well thought out fighting weapons to go blow stuff up in. ED absolutely MUST walk that line VERY carefully because if they don't they need to start advertising to the War Thunder crowd.

 

KA-50's with R73's are for the War thunder crowd.

 

KA-50ED's are for the DCS crowd that's willing to accept that the RU Gov didn't complete a project but that it had a very likely goal, and we'd like to see the product that they would have had.

 

VERY different things.

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, we'll, the R-73 is on the Ka-50-2, so I'm ok with it on the Ka-50ED. Especially since the Apache and the Cobra can both carry Sidewinder. Not sure exactly how high or fast you have to be to successfully launch those, though.

 

 

As for FLIR, we now know that the Shkval was eventually dumped, and the Ka-52 uses the GOES-451. Therefore, so probably would the modern Ka-50. So, not fantasy. Just one of the many REAL pieces that needs to be brought together to form the modern Ka-50ED.

 

 

KA-50's with R73's are for the War thunder crowd.
megalol.gif
Edited by 3WA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Especially since the Apache and the Cobra can both carry Sidewinder."

 

that has absolutely ZERO to do with the KA-50ED... AND... that's another statement that makes me understand your POV... and IMO it's a bad one for DCS.

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then don't buy it. Your one of the few who doesn't want it.

 

 

Just don't buy it. I don't know what else to tell you.

 

 

But of course, you weren't going to buy it anyway.

 

 

Meanwhile, the "War Thunder Crowd" has their wallets open.


Edited by 3WA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be great if ED released their new BS3 module and said something like, "This is our Ka-50 upgraded version. We've based it on serial #** that we had access to. It has all the same features, upgrades and capabilities as this particular helicopter."

Valve Index | RTX 3070 Ti (Mobile) | i7-12700H @ 2.7GHz | 16GB RAM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be great if ED released their new BS3 module and said something like, "This is our Ka-50 upgraded version. We've based it on serial #** that we had access to. It has all the same features, upgrades and capabilities as this particular helicopter."

 

You guys understand that every plane/helicopter is unique, right? Even same exact blocks/marks have differences between them. And is even worse when we're talking about a helicopter that was used to test concepts and weapons.

I don't understand anything in russian except Davai Davai!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, we'll, the R-73 is on the Ka-50-2, so I'm ok with it on the Ka-50ED. Especially since the Apache and the Cobra can both carry Sidewinder. Not sure exactly how high or fast you have to be to successfully launch those, though.

 

Apache can launch sidewinder from the hover. And looks like they're is no height limitation either, as long you have at least couple meters just in case.

 

That based the Apache sidewinder training launches in Japan.

 

I don't buy the R-73 rocket disturbing the engines air claim. As firing whole rocket pods, Vikhr or Kh-25 missile must be close or equal to R-73 engine itself.

 

And all attack helicopters seems to be at least designed to carry AA missiles, considering that KA-50 was listed to have that capability from the start by Kamov itself, so there is that. Question that can only be denied by the Kamov designer itself. Not by pilots, not by ground crew, but the designer.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys understand that every plane/helicopter is unique, right? Even same exact blocks/marks have differences between them. And is even worse when we're talking about a helicopter that was used to test concepts and weapons.

 

Yes, we have understood that from the beging.

 

Here is the thing many who is opposing the KA-50 upgrade ED is planning forgets, that question is not what one specific port had at specific given time, but what KA-50 would be if the commanded production would have completed.

 

Russian Ministry of Defence approved start of the production for the serial standard. So what we miss is just more information about it.

 

After all, you can't even get exact informations from KA-52 that is on production, just like you can't from F-35 or F-22 or Su-57 etc. So how about KA-50 that is sharing the systems with KA-52?

And we do not need to know those, it is useless. ED needs to know those, and they are not going to tell us if they do.

 

We can't decide what we get, only to find that do we accept what we get or not.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...