Igla implementation IRL

All the haters are such experts.

Maybe...just maybe ED has more information and access about the Ka50 that all of us combined.

Im pleased to see this module brought inline with the modern battlefield requirements. All the haters will keep hating and buying playing.... So whats the fuss.....

Google Translate

To me, the Ka-50 is very near imaginary. It was an experimental helicopter that led to the development of the Ka-52…

You can relate to the project of the Ka-50 helicopter in every way, but you should not forget that the DCS: BS1 was created under the license of the Kamov JSC, and was an authentic model of the 2000–2003 of the real Ka-50 No.25 helicopter. Also, one should not forget that the dream of the DCS project is "to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible" ©. Therefore, I personally consider, for example, the legitimate desire of those customers who have already given their money 2 times precisely for the most authentic and realistic implementation of their favorite module, especially if this desire coincides with the stated goals of the DCS project.

… I would much rather have a Ka-52, built with what knowledge we have about it, and the rest guessed at, than a total fantasy Ka-50. But, DCS doesn't seem to want to go there.

The ED could for example make the announced DCS: AH-1S Modernized Cobra. It would be a module approximately equal in capabilities to the current DCS: Black Shark. Or they could also have made the long-announced DCS: AH-64 Apache (is it really that the Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow is much more secret than the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C Hornet or General Dynamics F-16C Fighting Falcon?!). In this module, everyone who wants to fight in helicopters at night with enemy fighters would probably get the FLIR, MAWS, RWR, Stingers, etc.

Instead, the ED chose to take a much shorter and easier path that goes against their own stated principles, offering their customers the third time to buy a module they love so much, but in the form of some kind of fantasy surrogate that never existed in reality. :hmm:

Google Translate

^No one really forces you to buy it.

 

No one here understand that, without this paid systems upgrade, it wouldn't be financially viable to offer free visual upgrade.

 

All of you that call against "imaginary" model should be thankful to people that will buy this upgrade.

Yes, of course, you are right. There is always a choice. You can, for example, not buy the DCS: Black Shark 3 module, and in the future lose one of the most beloved modules, for which money has already been paid twice. However, you can buy the module for the third time, knowing that this time you are offered a fictional modification of the helicopter, and continue to fly it in the 'most authentic and realistic' simulator. In any case, some currently have no choice but to be sad to wait for the announced DCS: Black Shark 3. :)

And by the way, I'm almost sure that fans of the Ka-50 helicopter would just as well have bought an update to the external 3D model and the cockpit of an authentic helicopter, without any additional fantastic options. :rolleyes:

^^

If they'd finished off the systems that aren't modelled (higher fidelity radio systems for a start), , implemented the laser using the same API as for the other modules (So other modules' weapons can see it or its weapons can see other aircraft's lasers), added the new damage modelling, given it a better cockpit and external model, put rain / snow / ice on the windscreen & functioning wipers / demisters - I'd have said that was enough for an upgrade fee...

Fantasy weapons and systems just makes me less likely to buy it, and taints the whole perception of the module.

Particularly if there's no way to remove them from the external model (hint from a customer)

Can someone provide evidence that this KA-50 did not have capability carry IGLA, Ataka, R-73 etc weapons?

And that needs to be documents from the Kamov design company or similar official for that KA-50 upgrade design or newer. Not "ED told so" or "no evidence ever heard" or any talks about old systems etc...

How many here knows everything about that specific model or newer than that?

 

Fantasy weapons and systems just makes me less likely to buy it, and taints the whole perception of the module.

You claim a lot that IGLA-v system is fantasy only and never it has been installed anywhere. As well you say that President-S is fantasy system and never installed anywhere. Same thing with Ataka missiles, R-73 ever launched from a helicopter etc....

Everything that is just an fantasy and never done by any means.... Why?

I don't think we will get any decent publicatons of Igla firing and we will have to trust ED on that for their implementation, much like most of the game and the concessions it makes. There are only a few certainties:

There are many types of people that play DCS.

Some like "authentic", with it's own grey line of probability.

Some can be stretched to very improbable sandbox scenarios to see what would happen. Or just not know any better.

And others still, want to set out in a helicopter, with an air to air loadout, with the sole intention of sniping F-15's from someones back garden until their name reads out on a random webserver's list of great "aces". Because to them, that IS reality.

You get to choose in DCS. No reason to require everyone be in consensus about any of this. We are going to have an igla, the Ka-50 will be the most successful front line fighter tested in DCS and people will still moan about the PK and argue for years to come.

So meanwhile, one can choose what server or mission you want to play and avoid what you don't want to see, very easily from the server browser. In the comfort and knowledge that BlueFlag will be even more broken when it comes to the Ka-50 success story.

There are many types of people that play DCS.

 

Some like "authentic", with it's own grey line of probability.

Those who want the realism and authenticity etc, should only fly with single virtual pilot life, and if they get killed, that virtual pilot is gone. In multiplayer that means all your scores, all your benefits, skill boosts (like G-force withstanding etc) are gone, and there should be ED account lock for those for some fait times, like 48-72 hours.

Now, lets see how those people will fly and fight when they have only a "one virtual life"?

If they get ejected, they need to wait that virtual pilot is picked up by some SAR helicopter pilot, a ground troops finds them and then they get transported back to original base and gets debriefed etc.

It would make a lot of multiplayer far more fun because no one would go air quake as they might very well get thrown out of the multiplayer and your name deleted from the "hall of fame"...

Scores would be given by completing sorties that AI plans, and they get very strict rules only to engage the assigned targets etc. So no trying to go "destroy whole army alone" as you are likely tasked to only destroy single tank somewhere per sortie.

Would someone really be crazy to go with IGLA missiles against some random F-15's somewhere? No, because the AI should be there to saturate the enemy controlled terrain with AA units etc that will shoot down anything that flies below 15'000 feet and air domes are strictly well defended against high altitude fighters. So those wanting to go fighting, would be under strict planning and commands.

Personally, instead of a fantasy Ka-50, I would much rather see ED make the Ka-52 with whatever knowledge they can get their hands on.

However, since they seem unwilling to do that, I do want to see the Ka-50 receive the Igla, and FLIR w/ Night Attack capabilities. It's the only attack helicopter that is in the game, and currently, you are dead if a fight jet notices you. At least with Igla's, you can throw all them at the fighter, and run for your life while he tries to avoid them.

Personally, I find the discussions around realism to be rather silly considering we're playing a "sim" where you can repair an aircraft in 4 minutes, refuel and reload in 1 minute, operate aircraft in theaters they never flew in, fight against AI that uses UFO physics and dive towards you as their only BVR tactic and do infinite vertical loops as their only WVR tactic and crash into terrain whenever they defend, play on MP servers where ground units never move, fire missiles that have highly unrealistic guidance and countermeasure resistance, take highly unrealistic loadouts, attack SAM sites where their radars are on all the time and have no sense of self preservation, attack ground units that have the morale of the Terminator and the accuracy of James Bond and the damage model of a 1970's arcade game, use A2G weapons that have highly unrealistic damage, use cockpit and avionics translations that never existed in real life, take off from airports where ATC might as well not exist, and fly in a game that has no built-in support for data cartridges or flight packages.

But when it comes to whether the Igla should be added to the Ka-50, a very plausible addition if Russia had continued to use the Ka-50, it's 7 pages of discussing whether this is "realistic" or not.

Just add the damn thing in. If you don't want to use it because it rubs against your sensibilities of what's realistic despite the other much bigger, much more glaring issues, then just don't use it or buy the upgrade and you get to keep your "realistic" Ka-50.

Google Translate

Can someone provide evidence that this KA-50 did not have capability carry IGLA, Ataka, R-73 etc weapons?

<…>

And that needs to be documents from the Kamov design company or similar official for that KA-50 upgrade design or newer. Not "ED told so" or "no evidence ever heard" or any talks about old systems etc…

Can you provide evidence to the contrary? Unfortunately, I have to upset you, but your question does not make sense for the reason that here you are trying to connect the 'white' with the 'sweet'. If you draw an analogy, for example, then you are trying to prove that the usual Su-25 can fire of the Vikhr ATGMs, while showing a photo of the Su-25T. :)

As for the air-to-air missiles on any of the real Ka-50s, for example, I have already quoted citations from Russian sources:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4017400

However, you probably either do not want to read them, or perhaps you do not know how to use a machine translator? In any case, if you are really interested in information, then no one will do it for you.

Both of the above photos (under the spoiler) show the cockpit of the same helicopter: the Ka-50Sh No.018 (later No.18). In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a prototype of the K-806 PrPNK (which later received the name Argument-52), which was developed by the RPKB JSC, was gradually installed on it. This system was tested on this helicopter, after which it was installed on the Ka-52 in the second half of the 2000s. The 'glass cockpit' is one of the avionics components of the aforementioned K-806 PrPNK.

The Ka-50Sh No.018 was the only helicopter from the Ka-50 family, on which a prototype of the new K-806 PrPNK was installed. In the DCS: Black Shark module, a helicopter with the old K-041 Rubicon PrPNK is implemented, and as far as I know, the ED is not going to change it to the new K-806 PrPNK in the DCS: Black Shark 3. Therefore, even if the Ka-50Sh No.018 had the ability to use the Igla missiles, etc., it would be completely incorrect to extrapolate the capabilities of this only helicopter to other Ka-50s, which have a completely different weapon system as part of a completely another piloting, navigation and targeting system.

True but then you dont have much "game". This is the normal method of flying combat missions in DCS with the 132nd and I'm quite sure many squadrons also do this too and most are OK with it - they signed up after all.

But then it's also not realistic. If you want to be realistic you throw yourself out of the window on the top floor if you die in your combat mission. Where does realism sacrifice something to become enjoyable? And that is the point - something has to give and that particular something is ... all of what DCS is, whether we like it or not. Even if you do play seriously and aim for maximum authenticity, it comes down to the mission designer and thus much of the tools he has are not worth arguing over, because you join X squadron or play on Y server where your expectations are met according to your own standard of authenticity.

I might not be a 100% fan of the idea of playing an aircraft that didnt leave testing, but its certainly no worse than the repair timer as someone suggests below. And repair can be disallowed as it is in 132nd. What we are talkign about is a PvP vehicle, for PvP online gaming for folks that like ideas of unrealistic helicopter use. But they are no worse than the F-15C pilots, no worse than anyone that conceedes they like a "game".

Those who want the realism and authenticity etc, should only fly with single virtual pilot life, and if they get killed, that virtual pilot is gone. In multiplayer that means all your scores, all your benefits, skill boosts (like G-force withstanding etc) are gone, and there should be ED account lock for those for some fait times, like 48-72 hours.

 

Now, lets see how those people will fly and fight when they have only a "one virtual life"?

 

If they get ejected, they need to wait that virtual pilot is picked up by some SAR helicopter pilot, a ground troops finds them and then they get transported back to original base and gets debriefed etc.

 

It would make a lot of multiplayer far more fun because no one would go air quake as they might very well get thrown out of the multiplayer and your name deleted from the "hall of fame"...

 

Scores would be given by completing sorties that AI plans, and they get very strict rules only to engage the assigned targets etc. So no trying to go "destroy whole army alone" as you are likely tasked to only destroy single tank somewhere per sortie.

 

Would someone really be crazy to go with IGLA missiles against some random F-15's somewhere? No, because the AI should be there to saturate the enemy controlled terrain with AA units etc that will shoot down anything that flies below 15'000 feet and air domes are strictly well defended against high altitude fighters. So those wanting to go fighting, would be under strict planning and commands.

Can someone provide evidence that this KA-50 did not have capability carry IGLA, Ataka, R-73 etc weapons?

wtf? How about you provide evidence that it did have the capability?! Since when does stuff needs to be proven to not exist?!

In that sense there is also no evidence that the F-15 or F-35 is not able to use Iglas or Atakas... :doh:

wtf? How about you provide evidence that it did have the capability?! Since when does stuff needs to be proven to not exist?!

In that sense there is also no evidence that the F-15 or F-35 is not able to use Iglas or Atakas... :doh:

No evidence is required to show something is unknown.

Evidence is required to show something is possible.

Evidence is required to show something is not possible.

World is not black and white, there is always situation that we do not know, and until evidence is given otherwise, it stays unknown.

Someone saying that KA-50 has never tested with R-73 it IGLA-V system requires evidence to show that it has not ever been tested with those. Those evidences are like documents of all weapons tests that KA-50 has gone through and all documents of designs that would show KA-50 was never designed to carry neither of those.

Unless such documents are provided as evidence, then there is no evidence that KA-50 can't use those.

It is a situation where there ain't evidence to either direction, but if there are facts like Igla-V system exists and manufacturer has stated it is available for KA-50, it is fact such system exist, yet not fact that it is used in KA-50, only it would be possible.

because it is fact that R-73 exist, there is photos of it been tested and reports that it has been launched and tested, but no evidence it is in use, it is only possibility. Because it is a fact that three pylon wing exists for KA-50-2 and KA-50 with same attachment capability to fuselage, there is even possibility that such upgraded wing would have gone to latest KA-50 variants as designed, yet no evidence so would had done.

It would only be fantasy if:

1) no three pylon wings ever existed.

2) no such weapon as IGLA-V existed.

3) no such protection suite as president-S existed.

4) no more modern KA-50 ever ever existed than the 2001 variant #25 we have, that doesn't anymore exist as it has been upgraded to glass cockpit versions few times.

Our KA-50 we have in DCS doesnt exist anymore, it has been upgraded and modified further, something that no one here knows exactly to what state, only that it has gone through updates for new suites that include systems like President-S, A-A missiles, redesigned cockpit etc. Feedback that pilots gave after the war trials and test trials after that. Upgrade suites that government approved and ordered, canceling them multiple times.

When you don't know something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

F-35 or F-15 with ataka or igla is fiction, and fallacy.

Fantasy is about elfs, unicorns, trolls, three headed sea monsters etc....

Science fiction is about anti-gravity, light speed engines, pure endless clean energy sources etc.....

What ED is doing, is that they take real existing systems and weapons, and they follow the educated guesswork how those would have been implemented to KA-50 all at once as some sources clearly provides as evidence and some goes more for guessing based reports that it was design that might have never implemented.

They simply take existing parts A, B and C, and they put it together to one airframe, regardless they don't have evidence so would have done or not, but because there is likely hood so would have been done.

And btw, that factory KA-50 is from 2008, not between 1990-2000....

No evidence is required to show something is unknown.

 

 

Evidence is required to show something is possible.

Evidence is required to show something is not possible.

 

World is not black and white, there is always situation that we do not know, and until evidence is given otherwise, it stays unknown.

Exactly, it is unkown (at best)! So it shouldn't be in DCS. We could end this discussion right here, but let's see what else you said:

Someone saying that KA-50 has never tested with R-73 it IGLA-V system requires evidence to show that it has not ever been tested with those. Those evidences are like documents of all weapons tests that KA-50 has gone through and all documents of designs that would show KA-50 was never designed to carry neither of those.

 

Unless such documents are provided as evidence, then there is no evidence that KA-50 can't use those.

Same for F-15 and F-35. Unless someone lists all documents of all weapon tests for F-15 and F-35, there is no evidence that would proof that they are not designed to carry Igla and Ataka.

It is a situation where there ain't evidence to either direction, but if there are facts like Igla-V system exists and manufacturer has stated it is available for KA-50, it is fact such system exist, yet not fact that it is used in KA-50, only it would be possible.

That doesn't proof anything at all. Manufactures of military aircraft often advertise weapon systems for their aircraft that are not implemented. If a customoer decided to buy such a package, then the manufacturer would need to find a way on how to integrate those. If there is no customer that buys the advertised option, then it will never happen. That's quite common.

because it is fact that R-73 exist, there is photos of it been tested and reports that it has been launched and tested, but no evidence it is in use, it is only possibility.

R-73 on Ka-50? Where's is that evidence? I've never seen it. Show me.

Because it is a fact that three pylon wing exists for KA-50-2 and KA-50 with same attachment capability to fuselage, there is even possibility that such upgraded wing would have gone to latest KA-50 variants as designed, yet no evidence so would had done.

There are also photos of Tomcats flying around with AMRAAMs, yet the AMRAAM has never been implemented into the Tomcat, so that doesn't say anything.

It would only be fantasy if:

 

1) no three pylon wings ever existed.

2) no such weapon as IGLA-V existed.

3) no such protection suite as president-S existed.

4) no more modern KA-50 ever ever existed than the 2001 variant #25 we have, that doesn't anymore exist as it has been upgraded to glass cockpit versions few times.

 

Our KA-50 we have in DCS doesnt exist anymore, it has been upgraded and modified further, something that no one here knows exactly to what state, only that it has gone through updates for new suites that include systems like President-S, A-A missiles, redesigned cockpit etc. Feedback that pilots gave after the war trials and test trials after that. Upgrade suites that government approved and ordered, canceling them multiple times.

 

When you don't know something, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It doesn't mean that it existed either.

F-35 or F-15 with ataka or igla is fiction, and fallacy.

I've seen no more evidence that the Ka-50 was ever capapble of carrying them then I've seen for the F-35 or F-15.

What ED is doing, is that they take real existing systems and weapons, and they follow the educated guesswork how those would have been implemented to KA-50

That's the very problem! They can take real existing weapons (Igla or Ataka) and make educated guesswork how those would have been implemented on a F-15 and F-35 as well. The thing is, I don't want guesswork in DCS. If it is unkown than it can't and shouldn't be done.

all at once as some sources clearly provides as evidence and some goes more for guessing based reports that it was design that might have never implemented.

Clear evidence? Where? I haven't seen it.

They simply take existing parts A, B and C, and they put it together to one airframe, regardless they don't have evidence so would have done or not, but because there is likely hood so would have been done.

Again, ED could do the same with F-15 or F-35. Just take existing weapons like Igla and Ataka and implement it on the F-15 or F-35.

Guys, you realise that this is an unwinnable argument because the data isnt there to disprove or prove any assertions? And since it's being done anyway, its double pointless because whoever tires first still hasn't lost anything, their opinion will still be their opinion after release and unlikely to change because one person says it must be probable to include it and another says it must be unlikely before not including it? And nowhere in ED's marketing have they said that a plane must have flown combat or reached this level of design before it can be modelled, the entire fundament of DCS is sandbox!

Literally the only relevance of this airframe appearing in DCS to anything is how it will get used in multiplayer public servers.

I wonder how much guesswork the ka50 we have in dcs right now has. Is for example the way we lock targets with shkval the same as in the old ka50 nr25 the same?

I wonder how much guesswork the ka50 we have in dcs right now has. Is for example the way we lock targets with shkval the same as in the old ka50 nr25 the same?

A lot. As example the targeting system only looks similar and it only has the core function to lock on the target.

But example, in real thing the targeting system allows you to select the target gate size. Selecting the target gate size makes you to set the overall area that is used for a contrast detection and contrast lock. Likely for the given technical limitations, the contrast detection is done at the same resolution regardless the gate size (example, you take a input of video and you pattern it to 12 x 16 pieces and then you generate a binary pattern of it that way) and so on you want to set the gate size optimal on the targeted target so you maximize its profile and its contrast for the tracking system. Then when you have set the gate size and you lock the gate and the contrast pattern that there is will be tracked.

Now, in DCS for the simplicity, there is no contrast detection what so ever. There is simple a 3D virtual camera, some effects applied to it and then every 3D object in the DCS has a Identification number (ID number) that is used to tell to the game engine that what unit is what and track them etc. So when you point the targeting system in KA-50 on target and you press "Lock", the system checks is there a target ID inside the target gate. If there is, then lock is made, if the object is large enough. Meaning that if you use smallest possible gate size, you can lock on all units regardless is it a flat surface or detailed part like a track etc. But if you use large gate and target is just 1/8th of the area, it doesn't lock. And once the 3D model unit is marked by game as "Destroyed", then its ID number is deleted and so on you can't anymore lock on that unit no matter what. And not all models has ID numbers, like trees, some buildings, bridge parts, terrain etc doesn't have it, so you can't lock on them.

While in reality, it wouldn't matter what there is, as long it has contrast, it can be locked and so on tracked. But because there is a contrast detection that changes by the lighting, by the angle of object, other obstacles etc. You will often lose the tracking as the generated binary contrast map changes too quickly and too much. So you need to relock the target by pointing it again and telling it to track that new contrast shape.

And the real targeting system allows you to lock on tip of the tree, a rock on the shore, a road sign, a small bush on the ground, anything as long there is a contrast. And then it will keep tracking it as long it can keep its contrast change in check and update the target profile based it.

Nothing like that in DCS.

We do not either have any of the optical camera filters and settings, that should be coming now in the updated model for free.

Regardless it ain't even semi-accurate, it has done its job for years that you get to lock on target like a tank on billiard table, and then shoot missile at it. In reality you wouldn't be so much locking on destroyed targets, but as there is no real contrast detection or ground stabilization, you can't really perform correct rocket runs as the range metering can't be used to keep on ridge of forest or open field etc. And you can't lock easily (or at all) on flying targets etc. And the Su-25T system is even more simpler.

Guys, you realise that this is an unwinnable argument because the data isnt there to disprove or prove any assertions?

No they don't. That I have for months tried to explain to them that they do not have single evidence that what ED is doing has never been tested or tried and simply ignored or left on hangar because project was cancelled officially.

Because we do not know, it doesn't know that we know that none of that exist. Because we know that all those systems and weapons exist, and that they were planned and tested, we know that something was done for each of them individually.

Now, is there any evidence that any single KA-50 has them all etc? No.... Is there evidence that there ain't multiple different variants and various plans etc to proceed with them? Yes.

So what ED does is take a educated guess that how to put a puzzle together based empirical evidence.

Like example if ED will ever do a AH-64, are they ready to model all kind field upgrades done to those helicopters like install panties to air intakes, sewing all kind clothing to protect the computer parts inside the helicopter from the sand and dust or otherwise the helicopters would had dropped out of the sky? Field upgrades by welding extra steel plates to cover pilots life from ground fire?

How is the Mi-24P coming? Do we accept that in Afghanistan there were a lot of all kind unofficial field upgrades done to them? All kind from extra weapon hardpoints, new targeting systems, flare dispenser and IR jammers etc etc. All kind things that dedicated helicopter plant engineers did in the field after catastrophic problems. And only after longer period these unofficial "never heard, no evidence whatsoever" upgrades were informed to the factory and the designers, who then made the modifications in factory for serial production.

If one would go chasing a official documentation of a such weapon as "Molotov Cocktail", they wouldn't find any single one. Because it was Finnish infantry that invented such in the war and named it after the Vyacheslav Molotov from betraying the political agreements.

That field invention became so successful, that everyone knows that what is a "Molotov Cocktail". Regardless that no weapon manufacturer ever designed it, ever invented it nor is there any documentation that it actually existed.

The same thing happens every war. People start to invent things. Like in Syria there is a ground launcher for R-27ET missiles.... To get them work as a SAM. Does it work somewhere? Is there official documentation and designs for a that specific setup? No....

How many different variations there is from Su-27 fighter? Probably most that comes from the factory has different modifications somehow, constantly updating, modifying, improving the fighter. And when enough updates is done and found good, they get made in the factory for all as upgrade set.

https://militaryhumor.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Sukhoi-Su-27-Flanker-Timellne-Family-Tree.jpg

Because there is no knowledge by some people in this forum, it ain't evidence what so ever regardless that most people here doesn't know it either or those some people can't find any. Lots of things happens completely off the books, out of the ideas by the engineers and workers, by the pilots, by the designers and gets left undocumented.

That is completely normal way of life. Even most software engineers completely dislike to document their code they are writing. They just want to get job done and they write the code and if it works, it is great. Then when there in future there suddenly comes a problems, some engineer might find odd source code that shouldn't exist.

Even today game developers implement all kind functions and content to games, but leaves them inactivated. Then someone going effort to reverse engineer the code and dig all kind data out, finds that there were all kind new ideas and functions that were just left inctivated. Yet the company denies that work was done to do any such things.

The weapons manufacturing business is not like selling milk in cardboard container... It is ugly, it is innovative, it is big business. And money change their hands and all kind things are invented and tried and no one ever officially know anything about them.

Like currently we know that Russia is developing new weapons. We do not know what kind weapons. But only fool would be claiming that because we do not know what kind weapons they are developing, that they are not developing any because there ain't any evidence of such weapons. Yet there is no evidence that new weapons exist, until they get revealed they exist.

NSA was called for "No Such Agency" for a reason, because it didn't exist until it was.

SAS didn't exist, until it was commanded to perform an operation and public learned from it.

CIA doesn't officially operate domestically, yet it is constantly fingering everything in USA.

People can call all such things as fantasies etc....

Every day politics and business is done over dinners, parties, trips etc, out of the official hours, out of official contracts and methods etc. Backroom dealings, planning, designs etc. And public learns about things only when it is wanted to learn about it.

Clear evidence? Where? I haven't seen it.

So you have not seen KA-50 with the President-S system in it?

Okay... You haven't seen it, but I have.

You haven't seen IGLA-V in a KA-52? Okay... I have...

You haven't seen a two pylon wings on KA-52? Okay... I have.

You haven't seen a..... Someone else has....

There is a lot of things that I haven't seen. Lots of things that you haven't seen.

Lots of things that any of us haven't seen.

None of that means that some things wouldn't exist.

Do you know why ED wouldn't place IGLA-V or Ataka to F-15 or F-35? Because even without technical documentation, it would be found by educated guesses that it wouldn't be possible without serious work by the manufacturer that anyways doesn't have any willing to implement a enemies weapons to their platforms. And then they have even less willing to implement unsuitable weapons to their platforms that couldn't be used in the first place, like why to install a slow ATGM missile to either of those aircrafts? No logic! Why to install a A-G MANPAADS missile on fighter, a missile that requires a special battery with limited time? Yeah... No logical reason what so ever!

Yet, Kamov has installed IGLA-V to various helicopters, and it has been installed even older and all kind different than KA-50.

The President-S is installed as well not just on KA-50, but as well on all kind other helicopters like Mi-8.

The Russian Engineers are known for innovations and all kind "crazy ideas" and Soviet Union companies known for organizing that a lot of their vehicles are synchronized by the capabilities. like almost every fighter they have needs to be able to carry A-G ordinance of some kind.

The KA-50 is a prototype helicopter, that received multiple official upgrade plans for serial production after the KA-50 #25 that we have, that was upgraded as such just before entering second Chechen war in 2001. Lots of KA-50's has been modified not just to that date, but since then even to 2010 decade.

Are we going to see KA-50 serial production in large numbers? No.... Are we going to see any serial production? Very likely not.

Are we going to see them flying? Yes.

But it is already history and our DCS KA-50 is non-existing.

It doesn't exist anymore. It has not existed for almost 20 years, because it has been upgraded and modified heavily to completely different helicopter. Should we remove this KA-50 from DCS because it was just unique single helicopter? No.... Should we deny upgrading it something that was planned but unknown to public what was really done? No...

We just need to come to terms with the reality that the Russians are crazy. Then it all makes sense ;)

We just need to come to terms with the reality that the Russians are crazy. Then it all makes sense ;)

It makes sense that KA-50 has been tested for A-A missiles.

Why? Because Russians are crazy.... To experiment....

Google Translate

… And btw, that factory KA-50 is from 2008, not between 1990-2000....

Why did you decide so? Is this because your photo is a shot from the series of Russian documentary films 'Shock Force' (issue No.160 'Heavenly Predators', aired on October 14, [noparse]2008[/noparse])? Can you tell the exact date and place of shooting? Not? Was it filmed at the Progress Arsenyev Aviation Company or at the former Ukhtomsky Helicopter Plant of the Kamov JSC? It never occurred to you that it could be the same Ka-50Sh No.18, which, for example, underwent either maintenance or repair at the Ukhtomsky Helicopter Plant, or was there for the installation and commissioning of new optoelectronic systems before the MAKS-2007?

In 2008, only 2 the Ka-50 helicopters remained at the production of the Progress Arsenyev Aviation Company. All other Ka-50s that they started to produce there were sent incomplete for conversion to 2 pre-production Ka-52s (No.062 and No.063), as well as for conversion to the first 5 serial Ka-52s of the pilot batch.

In 2009, both of the remaining Ka-50s were completed and transferred to the customer. These were the Ka-50 No.27 and No.28. These helicopters had the K-041 Rubicon PrPNK, as well as a standard cockpit with minor changes (No.27 and No.28). After the release of these last two Ka-50s, the history of the production of this helicopter was over.

UPD.

Rectification: in addition to the two Ka-50s No.27 and No.28, which were in production in 2008, the Progress Arsenyev Aviation Company also had one more the Ka-50 helicopter (manufacturing No.3538054703003), which was produced in 2006. This helicopter did not have a tail number, and until 2009 it passed factory tests.

In 2009, he was also transferred to the customer along with the other two Ka-50s No.27 and No.28 of the last batch. This Ka-50 named probably also had a standard cockpit similar to the cockpits of the aforementioned last Ka-50 family helicopters (under the spoiler below).

We just need to come to terms with the reality that the Russians are crazy. Then it all makes sense ;)

Lol, Crazy like foxes. :D

So you have not seen KA-50 with the President-S system in it?

Okay... You haven't seen it, but I have.

 

You haven't seen IGLA-V in a KA-52? Okay... I have...

You haven't seen a two pylon wings on KA-52? Okay... I have.

You haven't seen a..... Someone else has....

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