Igla implementation IRL

Lol that video with the helmet on a stick at an angle behind the glass, then cutting to a real guy touching the bullet mark is hilarious. The editor even used cross fade! I don't think Russians are crazy at all. I think some might like to be thought of as crazy, that's it. :)

Google Translate

You haven't seen an F-35 with IGLA? Well, I have... I swear!

In fairness, it must be noted that in this case it is true. There is a film on the official website of the developer (requires Adobe Flash Player), where the shots of the Strelets SEM test are shown. There are shots where land and even air launches are made from the Mi-28N and Ka-52 helicopters.

Also, the Strelets SEM is listed among the available weapons on the official website of the helicopter manufacturer: Mi-28N and Ka-52.

However, I would like to note the following:

1. Incorrectly the Strelets SEM called the Igla-V, because the Igla-V is the name of the old aviation system of guided missile weapons, which, apparently, has already sunk into oblivion, while still not having practical use in the armed forces. The Strelets SEM is a new unified system designed for installation on both aviation and land or sea carriers.
   
2. I have previously quoted a person who is currently operating the Ka-52. He says that Ka-52 real pilots have never before seen the Strelets SEM in Russian combat units, and accordingly, they have never even carried out practical firing from this system at firing ranges.
   

It's probably just like the Cobra and the Apache. They are "capable" of carrying air to air armament, but in reality, usually don't.

However, the in the DCS sim, they are badly needed, as the Ka-50 is a sitting duck for any fighter aircraft, especially if it is on the front line, ahead of any friendly ground AAA or SAM missile systems, that could help protect it.

So if it is where it should never, and IRL would never, be ?

In fairness, it must be noted that in this case it is true. There is a film on the official website of the developer (requires Adobe Flash Player), where the shots of the Strelets SEM test are shown. There are shots where land and even air launches are made from the Mi-28N and Ka-52 helicopters.

Thanks, you're the first one to provide some actual evidence. But still, it's just for the Mi-28N and Ka-52, but not for the Ka-50 and even for the Ka-52 it just seems to be some testing that has seen no adoption in actual service as you said. It's like the AMRAAM on the Tomcat that has been tested as well, but never adopted.

It's probably just like the Cobra and the Apache. They are "capable" of carrying air to air armament, but in reality, usually don't.

Probably true for the Apache, but AFAIK the Cobra does actually carry AIM-9 in regular service, although pretty rarely.

However, the in the DCS sim, they are badly needed, as the Ka-50 is a sitting duck for any fighter aircraft, especially if it is on the front line, ahead of any friendly ground AAA or SAM missile systems, that could help protect it.

absolutely true, but "beeing in severe need of a certain capability for better gameplay" shouldn't be a reason to implement features that never existed IRL.

Here it shows Air to Air in this russian documentry on the KA-50 starting at 8:04

Can never get the Youtube tabs to work on this forum

Lol, no, sorry, at 8:04, those are the Vihkers. Though, they do look a lot like Iglas.

Though, at 8:11 is interesting. I have no idea what that missile is. Doesn't look like a Kh-25. Solid, pointed nose looks like radar covering.

Lol yeah my appoligies on the time. But people calling AA on the KA-50 Fantasy. When the manufacturer does say it was planned. Then that documentary. Could of swore I did see an igla equiped KA-50 in one of these vids somewhere.. I am still looking but I did find this.

I personally don't see why the Ka-50 couldn't carry A-A. There is even a switch for it on the collective handle. And in my opinion, the Ka-50 was always more of an experiment than anything else. It led to the development of the Ka-52, which can carry iglas.

I just got this from https://www.army-technology.com/projects/ka50-black-shark/

"

A combination of various armaments to a maximum weapon load of 2t can be selected according to the mission, including anti-tank missiles, unguided aerial rockets of different calibres, air-to-air missiles, guns, bombs and other weapons.

The helicopter has small mid-mounted wings, fitted with four underwing suspension units and wingtip countermeasures pods. Up to 12 Vikhr supersonic anti-tank missiles can be mounted on the helicopter’s two underwing external stores. The laserbeam-riding Vikhr missile is stated as having a target hit probability close to one, against a tank at a range of up to 8km, and the capability of penetrating all types of armour, including active armour up to 900mm thick.

"The Ka-50 Black Shark is armed with a 2A42 quick-firing 30mm gun."

The Ka-50 is armed with a 2A42 quick-firing 30mm gun, which has an unrestricted azimuth and elevation range mounting for use against airborne or ground targets. The gun is equipped with 460 rounds of ammunition: two types being carried, high-fragmentation and explosive incendiary rounds and armour-piercing rounds. The pilot selects the type of ammunition in flight. The weight of the ammunition is 0.39kg each round, the muzzle velocity is 980m/s and the range is up to 4km. The gun provides an angular firing accuracy of two to 4mrad."

So thats multiple sources stating that the ka-50 Did have some form of A2A. I just don't think it was as common is all. (But that doesn't mean it didn't happen, or Couldn't happen).These sites were made way before this little debate on weather, or not the Ka-50 did or did not have A2A Capability. But you are right the KA-50 was pretty much the TEST bed of the Alligator. If the USSR didn't fall under. The KA-50 woulda been the mainstay attack helicopter of Russia most likley. But they ran outta money to continue its production.

It's probably just like the Cobra and the Apache. They are "capable" of carrying air to air armament, but in reality, usually don't.

 

 

However, the in the DCS sim, they are badly needed, as the Ka-50 is a sitting duck for any fighter aircraft, especially if it is on the front line, ahead of any friendly ground AAA or SAM missile systems, that could help protect it.

Right, well lonewolfing in a helo without top cover is suicide, and rightly so as usual with bad tactics. Air Quake is bad. Air Quake in a helo is worse. It's only ''badly needed'' as you put it due to the frequently ridiculous scenarios seen online.

Lol, no, sorry, at 8:04, those are the Vihkers. Though, they do look a lot like Iglas.

 

 

Though, at 8:11 is interesting. I have no idea what that missile is. Doesn't look like a Kh-25. Solid, pointed nose looks like radar covering.

Looks like Kh-25MP or MPU Kegler anti radiation missiles.

Lol, no, sorry, at 8:04, those are the Vihkers. Though, they do look a lot like Iglas.

 

 

Though, at 8:11 is interesting. I have no idea what that missile is. Doesn't look like a Kh-25. Solid, pointed nose looks like radar covering.

@QuiGon: looks like this is what you asking for... they said Ka-50 can carry A-A missiles... or isn't enough?

Right, well lonewolfing in a helo without top cover is suicide, and rightly so as usual with bad tactics. Air Quake is bad. Air Quake in a helo is worse. It's only ''badly needed'' as you put it due to the frequently ridiculous scenarios seen online.

Lol, yeah, but it's the "Ridculous Scenarios" that are played on this sim!

Like it or not, there are fighters in the sky, and I can see this happening in very hot, chaotic battles ( like the ones the future probably holds).

@QuiGon: looks like this is what you asking for... they said Ka-50 can carry A-A missiles... or isn't enough?

Because a TV documentary said so? Without showing any pictures/video of it? :huh:

I've seen more TV documentaries on military equipment that contained false information than ones without any errors. Just last week I watched a TV documentary on the A-4 Skyhawk and they called it an F-4 at one point...

What I feel from OP. It is just complete guess, just don't want to lie about my vision on whole thing.

 

OP doesn't really care about whole "fantasy" thing. If fantasy would happen with some L-39 which he won't encounter in MP, he wouldn't flinch.

 

OP don't really fly KA-50 in DCS

 

OP hate to see probably these new features in future being used by other people in MP. Because he won't fly red aircraft, but those pesky reds will use them. And no one gives other things for aircraft he flies.

I'll tell you, as someone who was on the beta team for the Ka-50, and has flown the Ka-50 since before it was released, you don't know what you're talking about.

Some people want E.D. to model the aircraft as they were built.

That's all the OP was after.

Some people don't care whether what they're playing is an accurate representation of the aircraft or not - they want something that will let them win, and if that means adding fantasy elements - then so be it.

You appear to fall into that group.

As engineer, not an aircraft engineer though, but just from electronics etc. point of view I don't see much problems in mounting MWS. Especially when its advertised and sold as modular system for mounting on different helicopters like president-S:

(…)

SO OP definition of fantasy here about coming MLWS is hinges only on his desire to not see it used by others and finding really nitpicking argument, not even technical one.

By this reasoning we should have a PESA radar & R-77 on the Su-27...

They're real things that were added to other aircraft, they were in the advertising brochures as available to export customers if they wanted to pay for them, and they only reason we don't have the in DCS right now is that they were never added to the aircraft in real life

This thread though made me realize, that I can't find anything about Kh-25 being used on KA-50 IRL

Would you like me to start a bug thread to have it removed ?

Edit -

All joking aside - at the time of development E.D. were working directly with Kamov.

Presumably they included the Kh-25ML because Kamov said it could theoretically carry it, but didn't include a functioning MLWS (despite the external mounts and cockpit switch) or the ability to mount Igla (both of which would have been more useful than the Kh-25ML), because Kamov said the real thing didn't have one/couldn't carry them.

Would you like me to start a bug thread to have it removed ?

Nah, but you could start one asking for it to be buddy-lase:able like it is from the Su-25T (and to a lesser extent the Su-25). :P

Nah, but you could start one asking for it to be buddy-lase:able like it is from the Su-25T (and to a lesser extent the Su-25). :P

If we would have a KA-50 designating targets for any platform launching Kh-25 etc that can just receive the information when the missile seeker spots the laser spot, then it would make a far more useful module for the RED team.

Same thing again if Su-25A and Su-25T could designate for the KA-50, it would allow cooperation between those. But IIRC the KA-50 we have from 1991 doesn't have the laser spot search capability like the Skhval system had in Su-25T (that was the Shkval automatic scanning mode purpose).

I had couple videos of the real Shkval system operations but it is more like a decade ago I had them saved somewhere. It is fascinating system how advanced it really was, but lacked that important low visibility missions capability.

If I would fall in that group I wouldn't mention Kh-25. I'm interested only in what was technically designed and built and can be used for aircraft.

That is IMHO main problem here. There are various groups here that:

Group A) Believe that everything should be only by the specs + doctrine + generally used.

That means that regardless if one specific group uses one style, other another etc, it doesn't matter as they only care about the very specific specifications etc that they define. They are "purists". It is 1/0 for them, if there is no specific document explaining something to be used by authority the completely can accept, then it is zero to them.

Group 2) Believe that everything is open to debate and they even would take a IGLA's to F-15C if they could, or R-77 to Su-27S etc. Many of them are just for the faith or ignorance and believe. But they still don't expect to see unicorns or other magical creatures even when some purists talks about such existences.

Group 3) That has more freedom in their attitude, like if "87th air wing" or "country A" has unit Y in operational use but all the rests doesn't, they accept it to exist but they give it to mission designer to decide is it available or not. They as well accept that there are various variants and modifications that are not in the specifications or documents and might have just been tested and found functional but someone says "no" in the leadership and it is not written to allowed ammunition etc regardless it is completely working product. And they give such situation again in hands of the mission designer. They are more open to understand that there is lack of information for various reasons, but that doesn't mean it is evidence itself to counter the possibility.

This eventually leads that one group can make very wild dreams ("I want AIM-54's to F-15!"), but it is not a problem. The problem is the people who has zero tolerance outside the authoritative source as they want to everything to be exactly as on the paper, and if they never see the paper then they never accept it, as there is no such thing as "possibility" or "maybe" in their vocalirity.

So everything goes fine as long there are lots of public sources etc. They even accept themselves specific books, magazines etc but if someone else would counter those with other information from books, magazines, personnel using them etc (hearsay) that becomes a problem.

And when if it becomes a situation where there is no official information, no official statements, no documentation as everything goes behind a "iron curtain", buried in some warehouses and all kind secrecy laws etc, but there is evidence to point some other possibilities and so on, there is a war against those who say "It might be possible" by those who say "give me proof that is official documentation!".

Like one ground crew chief said once in this forum about F-16C Block 50 that in the airbase he worked there was not a single aircraft that was identical with others, but all of them were different by the specs, even when all were same on the paper. No wonder that he got attacked.

The A-G radar functions in our Hornet has received lots of dreams about how effective that thing is, regardless that there are pilots and people with pilots as friends and other sources telling that it ain't so great as it is not so advanced and so on so useful as would be wanted to be believed, and they get attacked because it breaks the idea that one can just go and find everyone on the ground easily and just dominate the ground.

As I have stated my opinion, DCS is amazing product when it comes to two things: 1) Cockpit and systems modeling and 2) Flight modeling.

But everything else outside of those two when it comes to combat, is extremely simple. There is no correct behavior on any Air-Defense units, there is no behavior on any single ground unit. You can't script, code or trigger anything reality would be, it is all about dreamy "I fly there and I bomb that!" kind flying. DCS simply breaks down immediately when you step outside of the cockpit. And one of the major problem in that is the multiplayer, where so many pilot gets to the air quake etc, because there are no restrictions that in reality there would be.

Why the far better corresponding definition for the DCS is "Study Simulator" where one can study the systems, procedures for landing/take-off and releasing some weapons. But not to actually do the fighting, not to do actual missions etc because everything outside the cockpit does not work as it should.

I have suggested here for a new (not a replacement, but additional) mode for multiplayer as "Hard Core" mode, where every pilot gets a heavy restrictions as virtual pilots and if they die, eject etc they get heavily penalized by not be able to fly for a while. That would put their actions in the line and think twice about doing something stupid like air quake as their fun would be restricted by their own actions if KIA, MIA etc.

But some people do not like even at such idea that there would be such servers that would enforce such setting, regardless they could very well choose some other servers to fly. Maybe because they feel threatened by the idea that someone would show that they are not up to the higher skill level requirement than they are.

And the problem is that such system has been effectively and nicely implemented on many other games through the history. One of the most famous is simply the "Rogue" and its variations like Nethack.

Those who doesn't know the game type, here is it in the WWW version. https://alt.org/nethack/hterm/

You can even connect and observe other players playing that game in real time.

And the challenge in the game really is to retrieve the Amulet of Yendor in randomly generated dungeon. And you die in it often, you create so many different characters that you simply fall in deep love of the whole game world and its mechanics.

And it is so well working game mechanic that it is implemented to many games even today. Die, you start from scratch. As it makes you value every single character you have, find best of you and your character.

And one of the great examples of that is the current Escape From Tarkov game series where your main character loot is gone after death that they brought in the session etc. And then they need to wait about 30 minutes between death and new login. And that makes every player value their gametime and their actions far more than anything else. It is not quake where you know you will spawn just second later and you can come to try again. No, you are OUT for a while. And you have time to think what you did wrong, and that is when players realize that they should learn to extend, get away, analyze the risks and just back off so they can fight on another time.

Such a personal experience is something that will quickly teach players to respect others, hone their own skills and learn to adapt and simply avoid stupid risks. There wouldn't be air quaking because you get penalized from that by yourself.

And that would as well mean that you are not going to take stupid loadouts to fight, you wouldn't go to challenge even helicopters as fighter because you know that there is high risk you die and you are gone for penalty box.

If we would have a KA-50 designating targets for any platform launching Kh-25 etc that can just receive the information when the missile seeker spots the laser spot, then it would make a far more useful module for the RED team.

 

Same thing again if Su-25A and Su-25T could designate for the KA-50, it would allow cooperation between those. But IIRC the KA-50 we have from 1991 doesn't have the laser spot search capability like the Skhval system had in Su-25T (that was the Shkval automatic scanning mode purpose).

 

I had couple videos of the real Shkval system operations but it is more like a decade ago I had them saved somewhere. It is fascinating system how advanced it really was, but lacked that important low visibility missions capability.

I haven't tested it fully, but it's supposed to be possible to buddy-lase the 25s between two sharks, and on the aircraft side, even without a spotting capability you can still launch the thing and have it home on someone else's laser. After all, with good communication, you can talk in the launch without HUD indication. And just about anything that can lase can also carry an ample supply of smoke rockets for marking…

The annoying part is that, even though the missile should be able to do it on its own, it can't when fired from the Shark. There's just no detection at all unless another Shark is doing the lasing. This could conceivably be explained by the use of a some supaspecial supasecrit laser code, but no-one has been able to figure it out (which shouldn't be that hard) so it's most likely hard-coded in.

If Sharks could lase for the Rooks and vice versa, it would change a lot of things and suddenly make the recon ability of the helo a lot more interesting. As it is, the Su-25T is the only one that carries the Kh-25ML and can really use it to its full extent. The regular Su-25 almost can, but silliness in the laser logic keeps it from working in practice (you can't fire the missile without auto-firing the laser, which the missile the then automatically guides on, but which is most likely aimed somewhere in the rough direction of lower Djubouti in a buddy-lase situation). But on the other hand, unlike the Shark, the Su-25 has that laser spot search so if nothing else, buddy-lasing lets the pilot know where to aim and to roughly set up the shot from way outside visual range).