Black Shark 3 official photos.

Google Translate

… cause the problem is not AT ALL them, you know, wandering off by themselves assuming the righteousness of the Socialist Cause will protect them from enemies, no matter how idiotic their flight plan is.

:megalol:

Boldly we go into battle

For Soviet power,

And as one, we die

In the fight for it!

 

— From the Soviet revolutionary song.

...IMHO, I believe that this switch sets the temperature of the powder charge of the ATGM propulsion system, which accordingly depends on the temperature of the surrounding air.

 

I *think* that rather than affecting the rocket burn temperature, this control adjusts presets for air density, which will make a difference to aerodynamic performance and thus range and control effectiveness.

But I may be mistaken. It doesn't matter anyway as the control has no effect in the sim, just discussing it for the sake of it. Definitely not looking for an argument ;)

 

(Snipped lots of really interesting stuff with which I agree totally. And then...)

 

But Ka50 was given Vikhr and the range to snipe out enemy targets while still staying within friendly-held terrain. Even if Ka50 would move in behind enemy lines, it was sent on special missions, and in any of such places, SAM would have been already neutralized. Yet still people complain about Ka50 not having RWR. Just to give an example.

That's not entirely accurate. I interviewed Dr Mikheyev in, I think, 1992 and he quite openly stated that one of the specified mission profiles was to stalk and kill NATO (he actually said NATO but the official translator changed it to "Enemy") attack helicopters and to carry out precision strikes on defensive positions. That then got "corrected" to carrying out precision strikes on advancing enemy units...

So the majority of what you say is absolutely right, and with the adoption of Ka-52 into service the Ka-50 was always going to wither on the vine. But that doesn't mean, in this pseudo-realistic world where Ka-50 is in mass service, that certain defensive and sensor capabilities wouldn't have been implemented...

Google Translate

I *think* that rather than affecting the rocket burn temperature, this control adjusts presets for air density, which will make a difference to aerodynamic performance and thus range and control effectiveness.

 

But I may be mistaken. It doesn't matter anyway as the control has no effect in the sim, just discussing it for the sake of it. Definitely not looking for an argument ;)

I'm afraid that you either didn't fully read my message, or you didn't understand it correctly due to an incorrect Google translation.

This selector does NOT affect the burning temperature of the powder charge of the missile propulsion system.

This selector synchronizes the 'speed' of the command laser-beam control of the ATGM with the flight speed of the missile, which will vary depending on the initial temperature of the powder charge of its propulsion system.

I'm afraid that you either didn't fully read my message, or you didn't understand it correctly due to an incorrect Google translation.

 

This selector does NOT affect the burning temperature of the powder charge of the missile propulsion system.

 

This selector synchronizes the 'speed' of the command laser-beam control of the ATGM with the flight speed of the missile, which will vary depending on the initial temperature of the powder charge of its propulsion system.

 

Makes sense :thumbup:

I read your message carefully - your messages are worth reading carefully, so I guess it was a translation error...

BTW, what the translated message said was "IMHO, I believe that this switch sets the temperature of the powder charge of the ATGM propulsion system, which accordingly depends on the temperature of the surrounding air."

I *think* that would translate as "IMHО, я считаю, что этот переключатель задает температуру порохового заряда двигательной установки ПТУР, которая соответственно зависит от температуры окружающего воздуха."

Edited to add your initial quote but also to say that re-reading it in the context of your reply I can see what you meant. Machine translation is good. Just not *quite* good enough...

Google Translate

… I *think* that would translate as "IMHО, я считаю, что этот переключатель задает температуру порохового заряда двигательной установки ПТУР, которая соответственно зависит от температуры окружающего воздуха."…

Yes, thanks, you correctly understood what I wanted to say. :thumbup:

People here keep asking about RWR. Have you ever wondered why RWR wasn´t put in the Ka50 variant we have (that indeed is a production proposal from Kamov JSC)? Ever wondered why Mi24 had RWR? Because Mi24 was supposed to operate at the frontlines and often beyond them. Mi24 would be the helicopter that would first and foremost engage enemy SAM threats if there were any left while assaulting enemy positions and support infantry and motorized units (In offensive: 1st Wave: Su27 to clear out enemy figthers. 2nd Wave: Su24 for frontline bombing + SAM neutralization. 3rd Wave: Army would move in).

Any citations for this? Are you saying that the Mi-24 would have been used more offensively than the Ka-50? Or are you saying that the helicopter doctrine had shifted to be less offensive between the 1970s and 1990s?

I was under the impression that the Mi-24 was intended to stick fairly closely to the army units and provide mobile support, with some ability to mop-up remaining enemy tanks or air-defenses (if they were unlucky enough to encounter them). The big exception might be supporting airborne units behind enemy lines (where they could provided support/escort for the resupply helicopters and units)... but my info is largely hearsay.

It'd be really interesting if any documents have been declassified.

Yellowgixxer quote of Dr Mikheyev is extremely interesting because it is potentially more than speculation (or NATO assumptions).

Helping Speculation

President-S DIRCM L-370 Switch present but hidden in the cockpit 3D model

Really looking forward to Black Shark 3.

BS3 will make life just that little bit easier.

Like the Apache in desert storm being the first airframe to release weapons deep within enemy territory, the Kamov KA-50 was intended to be its opposite number capable of blunting the attack of the most advanced adversaries by moving in before the jets or with the jets!

It is supposed to be a fast low flying precision attack chopper right at the very tip of the spear.

The hind in comparison is an excellent ground support chopper that covers the troops following.

If we do the unrealistic scenarios where a vehicle sits middle of a salt lake and we must destroy it, then it is Ok'ish. You exactly that.

 

But if we do semi-realistic scenarios, trees between, trees behind, sun is behind us, we launch Vikhr that's smoke trail blocks the target complete for over 3 seconds, the target starts moving etc. Doesn't anymore work at all correct way.

 

Same way as Vikhr fragmentation sleeve is not just used against air targets but as wéll soft targets. Why you have proximity fuze to blow up fragments near the targets instead flying rocket in the ground and fire tandem charge on rocks. You can't do that correctly as the proximity fuze doesn't detect ground. It doesn't detect buildings, nor trees. It doesn't detect anything else than Unit ID.

 

So you are hunting enemy helicopters that hover above treeline, you shoot Vikhr at them in A-A mode and Vikhr just flies couple meters above trees without any problems.

 

You are sneaking a enemy location and you see enemy helicopter hovering with cargo on rope. You launch missile between trees about 200 meters from you and proximity fuze doesn't get triggered for it.

 

In many real scenarios you wouldn't use A-A mode because proximity fuze would get triggered, so you need to position yourself other way to get a valid launch rules.

 

I made videos about Shkval locking and tracking targets behind the trees, but not on tree itself. It can lock on a fence post but not on aircraft against blue sky. It can lock on a single tire on a vehicle, but not to a whole vehicle. It can track target with perfect blending to background, but lose suddenly against perfect blue background.

 

It can lock on any part of the building, even on pure white wall and track it perfectly, but has serious trouble to lock on tank sitting on snow.

 

The system perfectly detects is a target dead or alive and denies locking if dead, while in reality a dead vehicle can have no visual signs of destruction for even pilot to know.

 

 

 

 

There is reason why since hornet ED models radar beam scanning. That same technology has been used in M2000 now coming IR seekers for scanning the target.

 

https://m.facebook.com/RazbamSims/videos/1056379681407524/

 

I don't know is that set to other radars like example AIM-120C that when it goes active, it actually would need to find the target.

And that is affect by RCS even.

 

Why to do that, when we all could be happy with a Lock-On radar as in FC3, that once target is inside a radar range it gets automatically detected. We can fake things like radar beam altitude but just keep magical knowledge that targets are there and show them when parameters are right.

While currently it is simulated that your radar and IR seeker needs to find the source.

 

We are getting all that for radars, why not for optical targeting systems?

 

ED is currently remaking FLIR system. That will benefit from real contrast lock system. As now we have unrealistic Maverick missiles lock ranges (example swedish tested Maverick B locking and they got 1.5-3km ranges, we shoot them at 15km). We have unrealistic FLIR for detecting ground units. We have

IR missile seekers unrealistic. Flares are unrealistic, chaff are unreasonable.

 

Lots of systems are based to very limited system modeling. That has been problem of the game engine and limitations of computers resources. But not anymore. We have gone from 1 core to 12-32 cores. No more 512-1024MB RAM but 32-64GB.

 

Want to simulate a realistic radar? You run a ray tracing on its beam. You don't need to do complex millions of rays but acceptable and work with it to do actual detection.

 

And that is what ED is doing with their A-G radar, the beam needs to scan the terrain, it is calculated what it seems and how to present it. It needs to actually see things.

Anyone can write a simple variant that is "good enough" by taking a image of the terrain, apply some filters to it and then place all known units as blocks to it and say "radar found these". And most players are likey happy for a while, until the simplicity becomes obvious and annoying.

 

In 2020 we can't have anymore such things to happen as in 1997.

 

 

 

When KA-50 got released, I was flying over a year avoiding all trees, power lines and such. I got shot down often and many times I was left wondering that what happened. How did I get shot by a T-80 from 4km range when there were trees between us.

 

When you learn that trees doesn't have a hit box and power lines doesn't destroy your rotors and so on, your immersion goes away. What use it was to add a SAM behind a forest when it still saw you and shot you through them? What use it was to change altitude for power lines when you could just fly through them.

 

And one of my biggest expectations was in the 1.5 new trees that got a hit boxes and so on. No more faking that "I must avoid these trees" when you actually need to avoid trees.

 

But when you can today lock on target through trees and track it perfectly, it brakes the immersion.

When you can't lock on target that clearly is there well inside target gate and optimal scenario and laser just range or but doesn't lock, it brakes the immersion.

 

When a player learns to operate aircraft properly it is great fun. But when player finds out that it is fake or unrealistic (like CCIP drop line always perfect on ground), it will take away the fun.

 

 

 

We can get that, not today or tomorrow but one day. There are already simulators doing that with virtual audio. As EAX processing allows to correctly calculate audio reflections, so we can simulate audio source, strength and direction and then that energy reflecting from the 3D model (that we can shape with other simulated materials to dampen or increase audio) back toward the virtual microphone. We can have very good approximately about signal type and content we receive, and use that to simulate a radar emissions. As radio waves are not so different from audio waves.

 

And now we can do that with a light raytracing, we have dedicated GPU to do just that, simulate rays in wanted form and shape how we want. and we could mix that with cheats, so that we still do it to everything at low performance cost, but when we know (cheat) that at given place is something, we ramp up the ray casting to wanted level for few frames to perform a correct calculation.

 

We do not need to model a nuclear plant to learn how it works down to every bolt and door knob. But we cant teach it by means like explaining it to a 5 year old.

 

 

 

 

A actual contrast based detection would bring lots of situations for losing a lock or track slipping to something else.

And it would bring lots of maneuvers and ways to brake a tracking enemy, like flying so that you get something behind you to create fuzzy contrast area.

 

It could actually be used for IR seekers tracking functions against flares. Like now a Flare is just a dice rolled once a second to check does missile lose a lock and track to it..only requirement is that flare is inside missile gimbal limits. So no matter of FOV or flare separation from the tracked target, it is very simple "yes or no" roll.

Why we have cases that R-27ER seeks at chaff that was way outside the radar beam and far away from target, but it was rolled and found Yes and it was inside missile seeker gimbal limits so missile goes there. And that is why dumping chaff and flare works as each has few seconds lifetime only, and each one is rolled individually. So 10 flares is 10 checks each time. And if example flare has 0.25 probability to lock missile to it, you better release flares as crazy as you get almost always away it. Then there are missiles like AIM-9X that's flare attraction is set to something drastic like 0.015 and you really need to get lucky to have it go to flare.

 

Does that brake the immersion? Yes... Knowledge is pain. And it goes both ways. You learn that specific module functionality ain't realistic, be it a R-77 on Su-27S or LAU-66 tripple Maverick launcher on A-10C and it is personal question for everyone, realism or gameplay?

 

DCS is under heavy redesign, and we should eyes toward future to improve things and go toward reality instead fantasies.

 

Some things we know how they work but we can't simulate them. But we could implement them properly.

One of these things is IFF systems. We can go to library and find books about IFF systems in detail, but we do not have algorithms, codes or anything such. But we learn the principles and we could very well implement such in DCS that acts and work as realistic, beign untrustworthy and causing situations where wrong or old codes are in use etc. But we wouldn't have anything secret simulated.

 

 

DCS does that already with hornet radar. Not ray casting but radar beam is simulated. Not just by scanning but as well calculate RCS based target attitude and you can slip in and out from hornet radar scope by using that advantage. In F-14 it is simulated that how you need to adjust radar to find target and track it, easy to lose a target if not prepared for possible maneuvers.

 

DCS has changed in last 5 years more than since Flanker. And it is going to change even more as ED has in situation where they can do those things.

 

 

 

Sorry that you don't expect more from ED and you accept a old statements that nothing needs to be improved.

If you can't find that there are missing features and lack of function. You don't need to buy "Black Shark 3" or hope anything new from it.

As of you look new cockpit and you look old manual and it's "not implement", don't then use those in future.

 

All other modules get their core functions improved, why not helicopters too? WW2 are soon to receive a new damage modeling, drastically changing ways to combat as different calibers has different effect at different parts of aircrafts.

Fighters has received radar scans and FOV etc.

 

But helicopters targeting systems to stay same since KA-50 was released is just ignoring the improvements ED does.

Well said. I don't know why ED keep treating Helicopters like a bastard child! while WW2 stuff and jet's get all the love.

I didn't say that it is ray tracing, only said that I could be made such in future when possible. But to this date it is better than previous systems with instant finding. And A-G radar what has been talked about is the challenge that it is not faking. As they really want to get it to see things that it could see and no more. Like park a vehicle behind a tree and it is invisible. Cover that vehicle with camouflage net etc and it is invisible to radar and FLIR, as well for naked eye.

 

As I explainedz if ED would have gone the easy route, we would had A-F radar two years ago already. But it is just super easy and fake thing. And ED knows better.

 

And we don't know much about new FLIR, but contrast detection is part of every optical guidance system that does tracking. It is core principle of any of such systems. In DCS it has not need to be done as we have unit ID and object ID. You simply keep a virtual camera pointing at those and it ain't problem as it is perfect information. Now, you can add some random checks etc to make it more realistic kind, but you eventually run a problem where you must call out your own cheating. So it becomes easier to actually perform the real deal and you get it working far better.

 

Like example with the AV-8B harrier it has capability to use it's FLIR to point a heat sources on HUD. In reality it will blink carrots everywhere as there are lots of false sources. But in DCS a terrain can't have a object ID for heat sources and the system would perfectly blink on any unit ID. And only way to get around it would be randomly blinking various positions on HUD and sometimes ignore unit ID's and this way make it unreliable like inreality. But it wouldn't work so well eventually. So if ED can add way to detect hot spots and such on camera, and hide actual ground units heat signature by their temperature and times etc, you would not need to cheat but simply show what FLIR sees in it's FOV.

 

It would bring the FLIR to point where it sees more realistic terrain temperatures and all objects etc. So no more always hot-hot vehicles and buildings etc. And making a FLIR can be made with it's system specifications to be able detect various ranges and temperatures. So more modern is better than older limited ones.

 

And now contrast detection system becomes valuable as you can have a realistic behavior like having a IR seeker lock on similar heat source when getting close, without just faking it by rolling random number does it lose a lock or not. We could make better weather conditions effects for all heat sources, as well optical ones, be it then a IR seeker going through a cloud or misty weather etc. And trying to target a unit that engine is down and is cold as surroundings, it is just no go.

 

 

 

Many things can be improved, but at some point simulation becomes either unreal by either accuracy or inaccuracy.

And we can't see these things quickly etc. But we shouldn't either just deny their possibilities in the future. And when one is creating the system first time, it is easier to design the capability in first time, than try to patch it later.

 

Like example hardware resources were low when Quake came out. And there is a reason why John Carmack is highly regarded programmer in game industry, as he has done lots of very clever hacks how to fake things. Like everyone should read his code for how they made the water effect in quake. It is just a few lines of code, very efficient and very clever. Almost like Albert Einstein E=mc². Then other ones like how to fake the lighting angles, without having actually lighting to be calculated. Or like how when the Command and Conquer Tiberian Sun came out, how they got AI to move in groups such a way that they don't melt the CPU for pathfinding and jam all to one position, that simply by cheating that there never was more than one unit by each unit point of view. So all moved correctly as they didn't need to perform collision check and pathfinding around other units, and yet you had hundreds of units moving together without clipping or passing through others.

 

In the software development hackers are the greatest, and hacking is that you fix things with a clever ways. (Hackers Not to be confused for crackers).

And it is similar in real life, you can have something that any Ph.D would say is impossible by theory (not to be confused to hypothesis that people mean when they say "in theory"), but it in reality works. Because some clever people get around theories.

 

But if the faking becomes too obvious, it breaks the immersion. Even today a Doom from 1993 is amazing. Yet it is super simple. And it is still very enjoyable.

 

When complex things gets faked bad way, it just is bad fake. And it likely could be faked in believable good way.

 

 

 

It is interesting how fighter pilots has far more demand for reality than helicopter pilots when it comes to sensors and weapons accuracies.

 

As if you can lock on another fighter behind a mountain, they call faul.

If the missile flies trough buildings, they call faul.

 

And they are ready to argue about smallest flight modeling changes to the end. And they can't do that just with real manuals charts, as those don't yet prove anything, but are just some specific scenario templates.

 

But if we have a Shkval detecting live units from dead, no problems.

Shkval to lock and track targets obscured by other obstacles, no problems.

Shkval to incapable lock on perfect target but lock on impossible target, no problems.

Vikhr proximity fuze detecting only living units but ignores buildings, trees and ground, no problems.

Shkval laser ranging randomly ranging to 0.2 km and designating below helicopter while nothing pressed, no problems.

 

There are bugs, there are design flaws, there are system limitations and there are user errors.

 

And all of those needs to be solved somehow.

Exactly 100% Even if they went on simulating only few variables it will still way better than the fakes that run stupid chances calculates that smart people get used to.

If you ask me I will always choose realism and not game-play. It's sad how people lie to themselves when they call it simulator and if we ask how much of the game is simulated and not faked I guess it will be less than 10%...

the fakery in DCS make feel as if we are still living in the 90s. It's really sad we deserve better and it's 2020!!!!.

The problem is not in how the shkval is simulated, the problem is that it doesn't work. Not only can you not lock a jet against a clear blue sky, you can't even lock a slow moving HELICOPTER against it.

 

 

LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK LOCK ...

 

 

Nothing.

 

 

Now, after all this time of trying to lock it, the enemy heli is now in gun range of you and quickly kills you (usually because it's an Apache with a two man crew, and so the gunner can casually take you out while the pilot maneuvers).

OMG man. It drives me so mad. I think ED never plays the shark if they did and were as honest as they claim they would have fix it just for the simple fact that if they fly for more that 2 F... hours to be killed by a flying target because the God damn lock doesn't F... work! They would have fixed it long freaking time ago.

the poor reality of what we're getting as BS3 and what I was expecting....

Or this

No I don't.

 

Because you fail to notice that I know that our KA-50 #25 is from 2001 when it was upgraded to include KABRIS just before it was added to BUG.

 

Our KA-50 was used to refine the KA-50 attack helicopter serial production in the future, after the combat trials the project collected the feedback from the pilots, ground crews and ratified new serial production standards to be built by making BUG include four KA-50 instead just two with added new features.

 

In 2005 the defense ministry issued order to start KA-50 serial production and speed up KA-52 development.

 

 

 

Do you have documents for evidence for that?

There are evidence that IGLA was meant to be used and to be included at some point.

We are not talking about 1995 version but 2005+ variant that is upgraded as heavily as KA-52 is today.

 

 

 

I don't need to provide any evidence that how the HUD looks like or how the wiring is done or who signed the document to accept the weapon in service.

 

There are multiple sides in this, it is not black and white like you try to claim it is.

 

I am not claiming that KA-50 has IGLA or it has R-73 or it has ATAKA etc. I don't need to provide any evidence for that!

You are claiming that KA-50 has never tested with IGLA, it was never designed to carry it, it was never made possible that any point in future it would carry those.

 

All what I do is that I show the evidence that supports the ED actions to why they can add IGLA, R-73, President-S etc because there are even photographs, there is logic, there are documents offering those for KA-50 etc.

 

You have made claim that all is impossible, you must offer evidence that shows that all that is nothing more than bad joke from the personnel who has taken the photographs, who has written the documents, who has made the orders to produce those etc.

You need to provide evidence that no such systems that ED is adding is possible. Not me, because I have not made any claims that those all has been done, only shown that it is plausible what could have been done since 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you have no sense because you can't provide any evidence that this doesn't exist!

 

 

You have made claim that is 100% lie and fantasy, now it is your task to provide evidence for that claim!

 

I am not claiming how it is done, I am just providing evidence that it is plausible that what ED is doing. I don't need to provide any evidence.

 

 

You have made claim that KA-50 was never meant to have IGLA and KA-50 having IGLA since 2001 is just 100% fantasy, it is your task to provide evidence that confirms that KA-50 from 2005+ couldn't carry IGLA!

 

I am not claiming how it is done, I am just providing evidence that it is plausible that what ED is doing. I don't need to provide any evidence.

 

 

You have made claim that KA-50 was never meant to have R-73 and never had R-73 on it and it is just 100% fantasy that if ED would include it.

I don't need to provide any other evidence for it as it is just plausible it would get it since 2001 later upgrades. You must show evidence that specifically show that it was tested, not possible and can't be done.

 

 

 

Once again you can't even follow the basic logic, why you can't talk sense.

 

 

 

Irrelevant. I am not making any claims that how the system works, what kind page it has etc. I have specifically stated my opinion that is the part that I have doubts as ED would need to know how to make the pilot interface for those systems. But I am only talking about is there possibility that such systems would be included in KA-50 that is modernized past 2001 prototype. You must provide evidence that no such systems can be done, or provide evidence that how they are made. I don't need to do anything as there is evidence that KA-50 has been flying with President-S and so on it is logical that there is a interface for the system that provides the pilot the information of incoming threats. You must provide evidence that is not possible, I don't because I have not made any claims that how it is exactly integrated to KA-50.

 

There is even some evidences that what President-S offers, like:

 

 

And notice that I am not claiming that the specific suite that is made for KA-50 has all those features, because I don't know. But that is the general information that is a evidence that President-S offers a RWR feature as well for the helicopter that it is installed to.

But as you have made claim that it is 100% fantasy that KA-50 since 2001 would include President-S, you must provide evidence that shows that it is not possible and what ED does is fantasy if it adds those sensors to model.

 

And now notice again that I am not making any claims that what is the interface, what are the functions etc. Because I don't really know, but that is as well why I can't deny that they exist because it has been installed to KA-50 since 2001.

 

 

 

Yes, we don't know what we don't know.

Good that you understand now my point.

 

Because WE DON'T KNOW, doesn't mean that IT IS NOT POSSIBLE!

There are three sides:

 

1) YES

2) NO

3) POSSIBLE

 

I am side 3. You are on side 2. And you are arguing like there would be only 1 and 2.

 

I have provide evidences that there some systems that has been implemented, just nothing about HOW it has been done.

I have provided evidence and logic that would it be possible from newer version than 2001 we have, to have a such systems that ED is implementing. I have not made any claims that how they specifically has been done because I don't know. Only that there is possibility.

You in other hand has made clear claim that it is not possible and so on you need to provide evidence that denies it is not possible and argue with logic that why KA-50 would never receive such systems that ED is implementing.

 

 

 

 

There is a door.... Now delete your DCS as your logic is that because A-10C, F/A-18C etc ain't realistic that DCS is falsely advertising itself as realistic simulator and you don't want to have anything to do with it (and if you didn't know, both of those has features missing, changed flight modelings to unreal by purpose etc).

 

 

 

If you are for realism, you are in completely wrong forum.

 

 

 

 

I don't need!

I have not made any single claim that I know exactly how those systems work or even how they would be implemented in the cockpit!

 

What is the problem for you to understand that? I HAVE NOT MADE SUCH CLAIM!

I don't need to provide you any documents of any kind that how the IGLA would be wired to firing computer, how President-S system would warn the pilot or anything like that in KA-50!

 

 

 

I don't need to, because I have not made any claims for those technical details. That is the ED job to figure out.

 

Our job is only to decide that do we accept what ED does or don't we accept what ED does.

But before logical person can make any such decision, they need to first figure out IS SOMETHING POSSIBLE OR NOT!

 

"Is it possible that your neighbour dies tomorrow? YES."

"Is it possible that your two years dead neighbour raise from dead? NO"

"Is your neighbour alive at this moment? I don't know, you tell me?"

 

Do you understand anything of that?

 

 

 

Can you provide evidence that what weapon system this KA-50 has?

 

 

Now that you have made claim that KA-50 that is modernized from our KA-50 from 2000, to have glass cockpit etc, can't have a modernized weapons suite, it is your task to provide evidence that it is not possible.

 

 

 

Irrelevant argument.....

 

First you need to provide evidence that KA-50 didn't receive glass cockpit, no new modern defense suite, no new weapons suite, no possibilities for new weapons etc.

 

I can raise a valid question without requirement to provide any evidence, why does this KA-50 have set to carry ATAKA missiles when it was positioned as statue to honor the project?

 

https://primamedia.ru/news/530353/

 

Why did KAMOV hang those missiles to KA-50?

Is it custom in Russia to weaponize aircraft statues with weapons that it never could carry?

 

Notice now that you don't need to provide any evidence to say "I don't know".

But you can't either demand me to provide any evidence that KA-50 can carry Ataka, because I have not made such claim whatsoever!

 

But if you make a claim that is just a lie, you need to provide evidence that why it has it.

 

But again, I can show you something else as well:

 

Now, before you start to make false arguments, I need to really well clarify to you that; Yes, I know it is KA-52 and not a KA-50. Because I know now that you will likely fail in logic otherwise.

 

Point is:

1) Modern KA-52 can carry Ataka as well Vikhr missiles, as the evidence presents it.

2) Modern KA-50 would have been similarly glass cockpit like the KA-52 would have been (of course you can provide evidence that counters the photograph evidence from the upgraded model).

 

Is it possible that KA-50 in its final standard would have been able to carry Ataka, as well Vikhr?

If yes, then would that then be a reason for a KA-50 statue to have Ataka missiles?

If no, then again back to question that why it does carry Ataka?

 

I can as well provide to you the alternative possibility.

 

1) The KA-50 statue doesn't have a three pylon wings on it, so is it evidence that KA-50 never would have received such even in design phase or at all for technical reasons?

2) The KA-50 statue doesn't either have President-S sensors... So it has not ever carried it?

 

In this article: https://wpristav.ru/publ/tekhnika_oruzhie/aviacija_protiv_tankov_chast_10/6-1-0-865

 

Is written:

 

 

 

I have that similar information from elsewhere as well that last KA-50 (with the glass cockpit etc) came out in 2007 february, before KA-50 project was cancelled in 2008.

 

As well there is a such thing written as:

 

 

 

You made personal insult by claiming that I don't know what a prototype is.

 

But clearly you have no idea what a prototype really is, because Eagle Dynamics is developing a Black Shark 3 from the standing point that what it would have become since 2001.

 

I have not made claims that I know exactly what KA-50 last version is, I only raise questions. I don't need to provide any evidence for technical details like you demand and claim I should. But I have provided the evidence that supports ED standing, that why it is plausible that KA-50 would have the systems and features ED is developing to it!.

 

Because I, and neither You, know what has happened, and what is happening in the 344th Training and Testing center for the remaining KA-50's!

 

ED has had contacts in the past to Kamov, they very well might have now some new information or to get new information in the future etc. We do not know. Because ED doesn't talk about their affeirs with their partners.

We do not know what ED knows, we do not know until later when ED actually reveals the KA-50 "BS3" and hopefully writes a good documentary to its development to first pages of its manual, just like they did for KA-50 history in the original one.

 

But the fact still remains.

 

If it is so that ED is simulating something that is plausible, then it is acceptable for many even from realism point (sorry!), even when the KA-50 project was cancelled in 2008 and there is no such units in service.

 

As you disagree with the possibilities that KA-50 would have been developed further from the prototype version we have now in DCS as KA-50 "Black Shark 2", it is your task to provide evidence that specifically explains with documents that why what ED is producing is impossible and so on unrealistic.

 

Because you are the "NO! Man", where I am "could it be so?" and not "YES! Man".

Epic job man you have nail it. even if people still deny it's because there are people in this life that even if they see the unseeable they will say that they lost their brain!!! so the issue at hand is brain capacity!

ED you better give us something worth waiting for after all the years...

I want RWR suite Non-negotiable! Don't mind if it's part of the DIRCM suite.

As clearly seen above those 2 missiles are AA Iglas... in case those who ask for evidence didn't see!

What will be amusing is, if DCS doesn't give the players what they want in BS3, and no one buys it. :)

 

 

I get the strong feeling that most of the people who are hating on BS3, don't own the BS2, and don't care to fly it.

 

 

To re-iterate

 

FLIR

Iglas

6 pylons.

RWR (which should be a part of the President-S System).

Ability to load chaff.

Instruments and FLIR cameras from the Ka-52 to control all of these systems.

 

 

 

This should allow the Ka-50 to finally defend itself against the Apache, which seems to already have all of these abilities.

 

 

Also, YES, it would be very nice to have the Igla's REALISTICALLY modeled, just as missiles on the jets are realistically modeled.

 

 

As for the Shkval, it's already a toss of the dice whether it will lock anything, especially air targets.

100% agreed I'm on the edge of scraping my system and leave simming for good.

I really hope ED to start to rework on the Ka-50 systems as they did for the A-10!

[ATTACH]246496[/ATTACH]

 

As clearly seen above those 2 missiles are AA Iglas... in case those who ask for evidence didn't see!

Yes, there are Igla sitting on the ground beside the Ka-50

You could sit an A bomb on the ground beside a Ka-50 - it doesn't mean the aircraft could launch it.

E.D. removed the Moskit from the Su-33 because the real aircraft could carry it - but not launch it...

It regularly appeared carrying Moskit or with them sitting beside the aircraft at shows:

..but it couldn't use them.

Yes, there are Igla sitting on the ground beside the Ka-50

 

You could sit an A bomb on the ground beside a Ka-50 - it doesn't mean the aircraft could launch it.

 

E.D. removed the Moskit from the Su-33 because the real aircraft could carry it - but not launch it...

 

It regularly appeared carrying Moskit or with them sitting beside the aircraft at shows:

 

 

..but it couldn't use them.

That thing above is completely different story and not to be compared to Igla what so ever! because Iglas are carried and launched as man portable deceives called MANPAD!!!!

So Iglas seen carried and next to Ka-50 and obviously if a man can launch it from his shoulder an Attack Helicopter can launch it let's compare apples to apples (we are still talking Iglas here!).

 

<snip>So Iglas seen carried and next to Ka-50 and obviously if a man can launch it from his shoulder an Attack Helicopter can launch it let's compare apples to apples (we are still talking Iglas here!).

Well yes...and no.

You need to get a way of aiming the missile (OK, just point the nose in the right direction could work), telling the pilot that the missile has lock (requires communication back to cockpit so needs the wiring and interface to be right) and, of course, a way for the pilot to actually fire the thing, which also needs wire back. Or a long piece of strong string attached to the trigger that he can maybe pull with his teeth... It also needs a means of turning the missile seeker on.

Not saying it can't be done or that it wasn't - personally I suspect that Iglas were indeed carried at some point, though probably not operationally (because Ka-50 didn't operate in an environment with hostile air assets) - just saying that it's not simply "If it can be bolted on then it will work" because, um, it won't.

Well yes...and no.

 

You need to get a way of aiming the missile (OK, just point the nose in the right direction could work), telling the pilot that the missile has lock (requires communication back to cockpit so needs the wiring and interface to be right) and, of course, a way for the pilot to actually fire the thing, which also needs wire back. Or a long piece of strong string attached to the trigger that he can maybe pull with his teeth... It also needs a means of turning the missile seeker on.

 

Not saying it can't be done or that it wasn't - personally I suspect that Iglas were indeed carried at some point, though probably not operationally (because Ka-50 didn't operate in an environment with hostile air assets) - just saying that it's not simply "If it can be bolted on then it will work" because, um, it won't.

Dude all of what you mentioned is per though of in military they have Standards Systems and Regulations governing all of that. So we know it carry it we have photos of that and if it carry it for such system like Igla it's for sure can launch it.

If you have evidence against that please post them here.

It will be a big shame if the new BS3 is not fitted with the 6 pylon wings because the most outer pylons/stations should be dedicated for Iglas and the weight of such system can be handled with the helicopter

And the most important as Fri13 has proven super clearly that the weapon station select hat in the collective is designed in a way for 6 pylons not only 4!

from wikipedia:

The Igla–1M missile consists of a Ground Power Supply Source (GPSS), Launching Tube, Launching Mechanism & Missile (9M313–1).

The wiring is already at the pylons so no need for an extra wire directly to the igla itself. And its an igla, i mean except for the missile itself and the ir seeker and all that technology in the missile itself, its not much different to an s8.

If you have evidence against that please post them here.

If you have evidence against teapot orbiting earth please post it here. You don't? :huh:

Oh, therefore it must exist. Good logic. :thumbup:

If you have evidence against teapot orbiting earth please post it here. You don't? :huh:

 

Oh, therefore it must exist. Good logic. :thumbup:

Simply love this thread..

Still going on about this?

The Ka-50 was a prototype/pre-production aircraft. It never fully matured as a platform and we don't know exactly what a mass produced variant would have looked like (A Ka-50N with Ka-52 like systems?)

It was promoted and even offered to potential customers with a wide variety of weapons - including ones it wasn't wired yet to carry.

So, yes - I think we can agree that the actual existing pre-production aircraft never carried a lot of systems - or at least no evidence has emerged that they were tested with them. However, we can also agree that Kamov was ready to integrate a variety of systems if customers were interested...

...and ED is giving us both the current (prototypical) Ka-50... and a 'late' version which has Ka-52 wings and some of the systems that were offered by Kamov.

I don't see what people are on about.