Black Shark 3?

Not to detract from the thrilling existential debate over what the Ka-50 was, is and will be. But does anyone know if the President-S system will have some sort of RWR?

I think it was said in the Russian forums there would be no RWR. Can't remember if Chizh said it or not.

This thread has been a classic example of how the internet works.

 

2 people repeat over and over (truly ad nauseum) their own mistaken belief that:

 

1/ The Ka-50 only ever existed as an experimental precursor to the Ka-52 that was dropped by the Russian military because of its single cockpit (despite being repeatedly told that there are 15 - 16 examples in service today - Does the fact there were only ever 21 B2 built mean they were never taken into production ?)

&

2/ The Ka-50 at some stage had a variant with 3 pylons - despite having absolutely no evidence of this beyond a failure of imagination regarding an unexplained switch position label in the cockpit.

 

& eventually so many people have read what they say that their statements become evidence of their own truth, and a myth begins....

 

By E.D.'s own admission, a Ka-50 with 3 pylons or with mounted Igla is an imaginary airplane. Not a little known experimental version of the Ka-50, just an exercise in imagination.

 

I don't understand how a community so nit picky about details, and that can argue so strenuously against flight aids as 'cheats', are so happy that E.D. have decided to build a fantasy version of the aircraft because it will make flying it so much more fun....

 

It's not a simulation of something if the thing its simulating is imaginary, and a 3 pylon Ka-50 with IGLA is an imaginary aircraft (either something Chizh just wanted to do 'cause he liked the idea, or the 'least' imaginary thing E.D. could think of to add the existing module to tempt people into buying another version & so fund the upgrade on the existing Black Shark module).

I agree.

If it comes like that, I wont buy it

Well, I for one, have already said I consider the chopper somewhat imaginary, in that there are so many prototypes of it, and it just seems to have been somewhat dumped. I'd like to see a version of what it would most likely look like if it had kept up with production of the Ka-52, which was supposed to be its Group Leader.

And the beauty of this is, those who don't want this, don't have to buy it. As far as I can tell, you're going to get all the bugs fixed in the Ka-50 #25, for FREE!

And people who don't like this new ED version on their servers can simply block it.

So, Win / Win. ED makes more money, and continues to be solvent, and fans of the Ka-50 get an improved copter.

I agree.

 

If it comes like that, I wont buy it

Insta flip of the wallet here amalahama, and I will burn you with my weapons and situational superiority.

THe Gazelle is currently THE TOP END DCS PRECISION WEAPON ATTACK HELICOPTER.

All attack choppers have been tested and cleared for air to air missiles, they simply do not need to use them against their current enemies. You will not see choppers carrying them in wars from 1980 to 2019, why? air superiority was guaranteed!

The newer AH-1Z is the only airframe you see at the moment fully weaponized for air to air warfare.

As peer to peer warfare looms on the horizon, you will soon see all other chopper models carrying air to air weapons very quickly.

For ED, KA-50 III creates a much needed buffer zone for USSR choppers, the Hind will be superb but it is not a precision weapon delivery system.

The KA-50 III will fill the gap on the Russian side that will allow ED/3rd party time to develop a western precision attack chopper (apache/Tiger??? I do wonder if the European tiger is a nasty piece of work).

The fact that the KA-50 exists at all in DCS is just as valid as the KA-50 III which was the final development model for the KA-52.

Indeed, one may suggest that the existence of DCS world itself is all based on the KA-50, its reality and true existence is entirely based on the chopper that never was..... weird!

KA-50 III and an update of graphics for our MI-8 and a massive update for our huey is well overdue!

I think the tinky toy FC3 graphics have been updated before the study sim MI-8, Huey and KA-50!

FC3!

Can you imagine the shame I feel!

THe Gazelle is currently THE TOP END DCS PRECISION WEAPON ATTACK HELICOPTER.

So I hear.

I think it was said in the Russian forums there would be no RWR. Can't remember if Chizh said it or not.

That sucks... im mainly getting killed by radar guided aaa and sams.

You've got to keep your eye's out for them. Intel might also show them on the map.

I don't think I've ever seen a helicopter system with an RWR. There's just no need for it, as you should be keeping low and using cover.

Heli is NOT jet. Stay low, and COVER, COVER, COVER. Even tanks can kill you if you get too close.

This what I mean when I say "Modern Battlefield". Nowday's, everything's mixed up special ops, targets of opportunity, etc. A heli pilot doesn't know what he's going to encounter. Might be Sams, Jets, who knows. And you can see the Russians thinking about this, when they made the Vhiker dual purpose against armor or air targets.

If there's nothing but armor down there, you can fly high to avoid their small arms fire ( somewhat ), but anything else, stay low and keep your eye's peeled.

If there's radar sam / AAA, stay at treetop and below. Use pop-up attacks against them. AAA has VERY short range, so just take them out with Vhiker or rockets at a distance. If you see launch from radar SAM, just fly behind cover or terrain. Remember, Trees are REAL now, and should provide cover.

If jets are coming at you, seek any cover you can find to get out of their radar. Pretty hard to do though, I've been sniped by them even flying 5 feet above a road, between 2 story buildings. Their cannons are like continuous shotgun blasts. Try to ambush them with Vhikers as they go by your cover.

Heli's are slow, and cover and distance are your friends.

Can hardly wait to get AH-1W. Was watching one the other day do a popup attack on a tank. It crept up to the treeline at mid tree level. Pilot popped up above the tree level and fired TOW. Pilot stayed there till missile was about halfway to it's target, and then started to drop down behind the trees again. As he got low, he turned 90 degree and started heading out. Missile is still inbound to target! It's track by wire. And he has a WO to control it. So the WO is guiding the missile this whole time by the TV camera in it's nose. Pilot can do whatever he wants to keep them covered and safe. He was heading out behind tree cover when the missile finally hit the tank. Neat little system. I guess the wire spools from the missile? Can't see how that would work otherwise.

and there is even photo of KA-50 having R-73 on ground under inner pylon.

If I recall correctly there are photos of a Ka-50 flying with an R-73 (probably an inert one)... I can't remember which pylon though.

As for the gas ingestion argument - well that would equally affect the Ka-52 wouldn't it? If there are filters or other solutions on the 52 they could be implemented on the 50... it is all pretty plausible.

As Rogue Trooper points out, the old argument that air-to-air weapons on helicopters is nonsense given the number of countries which have flirted with the capability (and the U.S. deploying it on occasion).

It also makes no sense that an R-73 exhaust would affect the engines, but a KH-25ML would not.

My thought on the R-73, is there a minimum speed / height needed to launch it? Not sure, as it is rail launched.

If it comes like that, I wont buy it

Me neither, although I'd like the improved defensive suite. So, if there's a toggle in the special tab that can disable the fantasy 3rd pylon wing, then... maybe. Will have to see how they go about doing this.

But then multiplayer... I need to check every time I enter a server if they allow the Ka-50 fantasy version; not good.

Imagine, you're flying on a server with the Ka-50 default version and receive an Igla from someone flying the fantasy version. Again, not good.

The server restriction should ideally be for the 3rd pylon wing and not the whole Black Shark 3 module.

Maybe the third pylon could only be shown when Iglas are loaded.

Then you'd remove (set to 0) Iglas on the server so they can't be rearmed and should be done.

You've got to keep your eye's out for them. Intel might also show them on the map.

 

I don't think I've ever seen a helicopter system with an RWR. There's just no need for it, as you should be keeping low and using cover.

 

Heli is NOT jet. Stay low, and COVER, COVER, COVER. Even tanks can kill you if you get too close.[/Quote]

 

That is the ABRIS idea. Datalink to the intelligence network. The datalink in Su-27S is two-way, informing the GCI from radar directions as well, as does by types. GCI updates all to fighters, bombers, SAM, MANPADS etc via air defence network. Where reconnaissance teams updates their spottings like SAM etc.

 

Currently all that is limited to only helicopter to helicopter in ABRIS as command is missing.

 

So you would get all threats popping in the ABRIS as they get added.

 

A Mi-8 flying with jammers, a direction finder etc would be there as well, a GCI can get periodic update from pilots about specific SAM sites while knowing where pilots fly and they would triangle the SAM positions where to send Su-25 SEAD.

 

That is a huge thing considering that GCI can do all, without having a complex computers on aircraft to calculate direction etc like in Viggen.

Add well pilots can do that, but we don't have pen and kneeboard to calculate, take notes etc.

 

As it would be more like this:

 

 

Meaning, meant days that SPO-15 is limited, while it is very powerful and gives great overall picture, better many ways than NATO type RWR displays.

As you get the priority to your main threats based to SPO-15 programming on base, and then data over datalink and GCI radio.

 

So how accurately you can update direction on your flight plan that SPO-15 gives, the power value etc, GCI can quickly get food estimate of radar.

Update that to ABRIS network and now you have attack helicopters aware that what is around without having RWR.

 

The main threat still is AAA and MANPADS, just like small arms fire. Not SAM.

 

This what I mean when I say "Modern Battlefield". Nowday's, everything's mixed up special ops, targets of opportunity, etc. A heli pilot doesn't know what he's going to encounter. Might be Sams, Jets, who knows. And you can see the Russians thinking about this, when they made the Vhiker dual purpose against armor or air targets.[/Quote]

 

I would say that modern battlefield is the information sharing quickly. We can update range on weapons, accuracy, penetration etc. But if you don't know where enemy is... Welcome stealth.

And stealth is not countered by during missile at it, but knowing where such a enemy is located, just the information knowing the area by 5-50km accuracy depending target.

Like SAM site known to relocate in 10x20km area randomly is big help. A fighter location by 2-5km accuracy is huge help.

A enemy recon team by general area/route is helpful.

 

If there's nothing but armor down there, you can fly high to avoid their small arms fire ( somewhat ), but anything else, stay low and keep your eye's peeled.

 

If there's radar sam / AAA, stay at treetop and below. Use pop-up attacks against them. AAA has VERY short range, so just take them out with Vhiker or rockets at a distance. If you see launch from radar SAM, just fly behind cover or terrain. Remember, Trees are REAL now, and should provide cover.[/Quote]

 

Alone that tree update made big chance... They still would need to improve it little for helicopters blades hit scan and rotor wash, but otherwise great.

 

If jets are coming at you, seek any cover you can find to get out of their radar. Pretty hard to do though, I've been sniped by them even flying 5 feet above a road, between 2 story buildings. Their cannons are like continuous shotgun blasts. Try to ambush them with Vhikers as they go by your cover.[/Quote]

 

Real problem is that radar spots any rotor like a Christmas tree at night. But they shouldn't be able engage you without selecting proper mode if not automatic.

 

What I am interested to know is that how low helicopter could be given until ground clutter affects radar, if even that. As blades are rotating at near supersonic speed all the time. Modern radars are different thing, but cold war era? Even mig-21 has the special radar mode for helicopters filtering.

 

Can hardly wait to get AH-1W. Was watching one the other day do a popup attack on a tank. It crept up to the treeline at mid tree level. Pilot popped up above the tree level and fired TOW. Pilot stayed there till missile was about halfway to it's target, and then started to drop down behind the trees again. As he got low, he turned 90 degree and started heading out. Missile is still inbound to target! It's track by wire. And he has a WO to control it. So the WO is guiding the missile this whole time by the TV camera in it's nose. Pilot can do whatever he wants to keep them covered and safe. He was heading out behind tree cover when the missile finally hit the tank. Neat little system. I guess the wire spools from the missile? Can't see how that would work otherwise.

 

The thing doesn't go so simply.

 

The wire does come from the missile, but you can't really have anything between you and target where the thin copper wire can tangle on. As it will snap and you lose missile. One of the major problems in TOW system why you can't move when firing and even a moving Target can get missile to snap wire.

 

Why laser guidance was took in place with Hellfire etc. Much more reliable.

 

I have read figures like 50-70% of TOW missiles lost because wire snapped after launch etc. If both are stationary, it is reliable if there ain't high winds that can move trees and bushes that wire is resting on. So dessert combat? Not a problem. European forests and all kind bushes etc? *Snap*

 

The missile wire was IIRC around 0.3mm thick, fairly strong but tangle it and pull by force of a helicopter or something else between two tangled points (other than missile that is spooling it out) and it gets cut.

 

But most targets are stationary, launcher is stationary and line of sight is clear, so not a problem.

It also makes no sense that an R-73 exhaust would affect the engines, but a KH-25ML would not.

 

 

My thought on the R-73, is there a minimum speed / height needed to launch it? Not sure, as it is rail launched.

I remember reading that it was 230km/h that you need to fly to launch it.

But then again it is rail launched and on first second it is already acceleration past couple Machs.

So likely a altitude limit around 20-50m.

And for what a R-73 would get help is the HMS. Look at the air threat, lock, launch a agile R-73....

Far nicer than any IGLA. But just two of them and very special ones.

I still take Vikhr almost all situations. Then IGLA for few special.

Why are you trying to dogfight attack helis in the first place, especially ones that can equip sidewinders? Your vikhrs... vs their sidewinders. One is a poorly suited improv, the other is purpose built... you're surprised it's inferior? Really?[/Quote]

 

Vikhr was designed have both features as Soviets found that to be critical.

The lack of features? No fire-and-forget. But you can't jam, fool the Vikhr by any ways.

 

The inferior side comes from the terrible locking mechanism and lack of proper A-A mode.

 

Fix those, and most will never even look at any IGLA after testing unless fighting against fighters in unrealistic DCS war.

 

As no fighter pilot would come down on battlefield that has dozens of MANPADS, AAA and likely SAM network covering a complete 50km radius of armored brigade.

 

There is no such thing as "stand-off" weapon, and that from mouth of F-35 pilot. There is always someone on ground that has longer reach to you at sky or means to destroy anything you throw at them.

The war is won by boots on the ground, not by helmets up in the sky.

In this post there is a picture with 3 pylons:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=141902&highlight=pylon

In this post there is a picture with 3 pylons:

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=141902&highlight=pylon

Read post #6 in the same thread.

Read post #6 in the same thread.

and? only because he said this? forgive my ignorance but I don't know who is him.

Read post #6 in the same thread.

And he claims that ABRIS was not in KA-50 in second war.....

While kamov tells it was...

https://web.archive.org/web/20111208110119/http://www.kamov.net/kamov-army/ka-50n/#

And here one can find interesting claims.

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Kamov-Ka%252D50?cr=1

From the time the Ka-50 was ordered in 1987, it was known that the limited night-time capability of the original Ka-50 version would have to be upgraded to meet night attack requirements.[27] Initially, Ka-50N was to have been fitted with the Merkury Low-Light TV (LLTV) system. Due to a lack of funding, the system was late and experienced reliability and capability issues. As a result, focus shifted to forward looking infrared (FLIR) systems.[28] Kamov drafted a design in 1993 that included the Shkval-N sighting system with an infrared sensor.[27] Many versions were tried; on some the original "Shkval" was supplemented by a thermal imaging system, while others saw a complete replacement by the "Samshit" day-and-night system (also used on Ka-52).

In 1997, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) in cooperation with the Kamov bureau entered the Ka-50-2 Erdoğan in a Turkish design competition for a $4 billion contract for 145 (later changed to 50) combat helicopters.[61]

IAI and Kamov performed flights of the variant with IAI's Core Avionics. These flights demonstrated the helicopter's "glass cockpit" with multifunctional displays and Control and Display Unit (CDU) driven by centralized mission computers. Also tested were its flight navigation and the operation of the Helicopter Multi-Mission Optronic Stabilized Payload (HMOSP) targeting system. The demonstration flights included night mission capability demonstrations using Night Vision Goggles (NVG) and the day/night targeting system.[61]

The fire control system automatically shares all target information in real time, allowing one helicopter to engage a target spotted by another aircraft, and the system can also input target information from ground-based forward scouts with personnel-carried target designation gear.[25]

 

A substantial load of weapons can be carried on four external hardpoints under the stub wings, plus two on the wingtips, a total of some 2,000 kg (depending on the mix).[16] The pylons can be tilted up to 10-degree downward. Fuel tanks may be mounted on a suspension point, whenever necessary.[28]

 

Anti-tank armament comprises twelve laser-guided Vikhr anti-tank missiles (transl. Vortex or whirlwind), with a maximum range of some 8 km. The laser guidance is reported to be virtually jam-proof and the system features automatic guidance to target, enabling evasive action immediately after missile launch, alternatively it can also use Ataka laser-guided anti-tank missiles.[52]

 

Kamov-52K can be armed with Hermes-A anti-tank guided missiles.[66]

 

Ka-50/52 can also carry several rocket pods, including the S-13 and S-8 rockets. The "dumb" rocket pods could be upgraded to laser guided with the proposed Ugroza system.[67]

Hardpoints: 4 (6 on Ka-52) under-wing hardpoints, plus 2 on wingtips for countermeasures or air-to-air missiles with a capacity of 2,000 kg,with provisions to carry combinations of:

Rockets: 80 × 80 mm S-8 rockets and 20 × 122 mm S-13 rocket,

Missiles: 2 × APU-6 Missile racks, able to accommodate a total of 12 × 9K121 Vikhr anti-tank missiles, Vympel R-73 (NATO: AA-11 Archer) air-to-air missiles, Kh-25 semi-active laser guided tactical air-to-ground missiles

Bombs: 4 × 250 kg (550 lb) bombs or 2 × 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs,

Other: 23 mm UPK-23-250 gun pods (240 rounds each), 500 L (130 US gal) external fuel tanks. Reportedly, twin Igla light air-to-air missile launchers under each wingtip countermeasure pod (total 4 missiles).[16]

And some say Igla is replaced with flare dispenser pods.... Again one source for odd claims....

Thank you FRI13, very interesting

The AH1 even the F version has a RWR iirc, the AH64 I think does, the Gaz has a RWR. Even the mi24 had a SPO10 or 15 something or other IIRC.

As for radar guided sams, I'm getting launched on and killed when I'm at 5m, by SA10's/11s/15s and tungaskas. Can't always see em cuz I'm in VR, and I can't see em from 5m off the ground. It would be nice to have a warning to duck doge or weave. I've dodged the SA10's before if I actually see them, but "seeing" stuff out of the KA50 is problematic at times. The RWR on the GAZ is quite useful in this regard and I'm much more survivable vs radar guided sams.

OTOH I did have a glorious fun time killing the crap out of an SA6 site on GAW I snuck up on with guns and rockets.

I also noticed IR sams aren't launching at me much compared to other helos?

In this post there is a picture with 3 pylons:

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=141902&highlight=pylon

Even E.D. - who are about to build a model with 3 pylons and Igla - say there was never a Ka-50 with a third set of pylons, or with Igla.

They've publically stated this, that a Ka-50 with those things is a 'fantasy aircraft', and that they're doing a fantasy version 'because they want to" ...

All the endless "it might have had this", "logically they must have done that" and "I can't believe they didn't do it" chatter is just people trying to persuade themselves that they're not asking for the very thing they've condemned so many other people for requesting - make believe features...

I also noticed IR sams aren't launching at me much compared to other helos?

Lol, yeah, it's the other helo's that will REALLY come after you!

Even E.D. - who are about to build a model with 3 pylons and Igla - say there was never a Ka-50 with a third set of pylons, or with Igla.

 

They've publically stated this, that a Ka-50 with those things is a 'fantasy aircraft', and that they're doing a fantasy version 'because they want to" ...

 

All the endless "it might have had this", "logically they must have done that" and "I can't believe they didn't do it" chatter is just people trying to persuade themselves that they're not asking for the very thing they've condemned so many other people for requesting - make believe features...

And can you please provide us the official serial production specifications for KA-50 that Russian government issued after the ED had access to KA-50?

Can ED provide those? Likely not if they say that they are doing something they don't know....

So again logically, you are just angry against people who are willing to discuss about the possibilities ED has, as well their actions in the past decade not to implement features that many provided them even with photos etc, only stating that the specific prototype they had access at previous time before upgrades and production was in such condition.

You really do not get that the ED modeled a one unique version at the time when it was not upgraded to serial production standard, but was still in the condition used to test and define that standard with a couple other versions, that were even updated to newer features.

you can have so much hate against people who would want to see a KA-50 as serial production version, that was never produced in hundreds like planned to replace Mi-24 fleet. But do not insist that current KA-50 version in DCS that doesn't anymore exist in reality as it has been upgraded is the only way to do it.

As you are now having the stand where you claim that ED shouldn't do a production version of some historical helicopter because their access time was in middle of development phase and not in the final version phase.

So you want prototype that doesn't exist. Others are willing to get final version, or the one from later phase.

So do not think you have a ground to insult others in discussion thread that they want fantasies, while they have proofs that KA-50 went far further in technology than our KA-50 port was at the time ED had access to it!

The second one is from 1997, a decade before KA-50 module was released, a military industry expo of the upgraded KA-50 with everything latest and demoed in flight (fully operational helicopter). No HUD because pilot used Marconi targeting helmet etc. That was Port 18.

The last three photos are the KA-50 in the production factory, being tested for a TV document made 2008, a year when our KA-50 module was released, after long time the ED has access to Port 25.

Your stance is like KA-50 development and production ended like snap of the fingers and that our KA-50 is the latest actual one, while facts are and reality is, our KA-50 is only a one version that was tested in the combat to refine more of the serial production KA-50 standard and it is not modeled to the status that KA-50 would be in DCS if ED would had access to later one or the standard.

As we would have the glass cockpit, not a unique old version in the history of development phases.

Want fantasies? Stick in your believes that DCS KA-50 is the only advancement there is and everything newer and more modern and feature rich is nothing more than fantasies. There are far more proofs that you are wrong and KA-50 was made far more advanced and feature rich than our KA-50 was in <2006 before ED had access to it (<2007 if even considering ED developed their first KA-50 full fidelity module in less than 1 year, instead more like the typical 4-5 years so we are talking ED having access to KA-50 #25 (that was not even most advanced in the development) at 2003-2004) and that they would have been given even access to Kamov latest military trade secrets to be offered to their potential customers. Instead ED was given access to old version that was in the action, that was used to develop the KA-50 more.

The same thing goes for the KA-50-2, some people think that it is just a mockup. Something that a two avid car modders could slap together in a week, by building a complete mockup cockpit with some fabric glass, plexi glass, and welding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdPRKTwDb6g

Yeah, that car is as well a fantasy one. Never existing. Yet, there it is, fully usable, drivable and functional. One of the kind and never come out from serial production.

And that same method is used in different phases of the development of all military companies. Field modifications that ends up to serial production, some odd ideas to solve a problem in testing phases that end up to final designs. All kind things from small to big changes. And KA-50-2 was similar to that, fully functional, flight demoed, operational, but one of the kind. As when you enter to a hundreds of millions worth of the competition, you don't go there with a "mockup" that you can't touch, you can't fly etc. You could very well just come there with stack of blueprints or drawings and say "If you pay us 450 million, we build you this in 149 units?". No, you need to go through the evaluation, demo the performance and the capabilities as the people making the decision is directly doing it all from impression of the test pilots and engineers who will get access to the weapon.

Do you think that all the countries buy the weapons based the airshow procedure or a weapon sitting there on the parking slot looking pretty? There are huge corruptions going on, big shadow dealings, lots of just idiotic behavior because some weapon manufacturers or even generals just wants to do something.