Black Shark 3 official photos.

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.

Jesus. No. Just no.

A Chinook can lift a Scud. Doesn't mean it can launch it though.

OK, that's a bit extreme, but:

Yes, there's power to the pylon.

Yes there's a hard point which *probably* has attachments that will fit the Igla (or could)

Yes, there's a trigger feed from the cockpit.

All good so far?

BUT

It needs feedback to the cockpit to provide a confirmation that the missile is ready to engage

Likewise you need to get confirmation of lock before you can successfully launch

You will also need some sort of target symbology, even if just to show the target is in the seeker cone.

My point is that you can't, no matter how much you want to, say that because a weapon will physically fit on a pylon then it can be used operationally, because that is patently untrue. And I *want* to have Iglas in the next version. Abd some sort of FLIR or LLTV. And RWR I guess.

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.

The S8 is a dumb rocket with no feedback to the pilot (ie no seeker tone, lock confirmation...)

Other than those rather significant points, yes you're right. But in that case why not put an R73 on instead and actually have some *real* teeth? After all, the technology is in the missile, right?

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.

Steady on old chap - that's a reasonable comment and there's no room for that sort of behaviour here!

And this thread just keeps getting better

All I'm getting from all those people wanting the Ka-50 to remain as dumb as it was, is just out of fear of it getting it's full potentials and dominate the battle fields and the skies.

For me I know for sure if a new customer for the Ka-50 emerge out of the blue and wants it to be latest on tech it will be super scary.

I understand your fear, but your time of easy target practice on the poor Ka-50 is over.

I am tired of those A10 vs II or KA50 II or III I paid for Black Shark .. this should be an update not a new version . or work on new aircraft..

All I'm getting from all those people wanting the Ka-50 to remain as dumb as it was, is just out of fear of it getting it's full potentials and dominate the battle fields and the skies.

 

 

For me I know for sure if a new customer for the Ka-50 emerge out of the blue and wants it to be latest on tech it will be super scary.

 

 

I understand your fear, but your time of easy target practice on the poor Ka-50 is over.

They don't want it to be dumb[/], they want it to be realistic, not some Frankenstein cobbled together out of other aircrafts' spare parts to fill the role of air-quake dominator

I am tired of those A10 vs II or KA50 II or III I paid for Black Shark .. this should be an update not a new version . or work on new aircraft..

You got what you paid for when you paid for it.

If you want them to give you the fruits of their laobour, you should expect to pay for it.

I am tired of those A10 vs II or KA50 II or III I paid for Black Shark .. this should be an update not a new version . or work on new aircraft..

How many free updates do you feel entitled to for the price of a meal out? 5 years? 10 years? Not to mention all the free updates to DCS World core to since you bought the module. :huh:

Meanwhile the Total War series and Call of Duty developers, churn out the same crap every couple of years and the masses go nuts for it at full price.

The chaps at ED have bills to pay to. What's the other option for them? Would you prefer to pay monthly subscription?

And just continually making sales through "new aircraft" doesn't work. 2008 module will not look right next to a 2018 module if there are no big updates or overhauls.

"Call of Duty developers, churn out the same crap every couple of years and the masses go nuts for it at full price."

#Wellsaid

I am tired of those A10 vs II or KA50 II or III I paid for Black Shark .. this should be an update not a new version . or work on new aircraft..

You got the free update to KA-50 BS2.... New 3D cockpit, new textures.... Just waiting to get all the missing features implemented to it at the same time as when "BS3" comes out.

Like seriously, Shkval doesn't have a realistic contrast detection system because DCS engine doesn't have one, so it doesn't operate anywhere near realistic manner. You can't even use KA-50 properly against air targets as your targeting system doesn't operate properly, having a clear strong contrast of target and Shkval is "nope, I can't see a thing!".

Same thing is with all kind ground targets and objects, with all the problems and challenges that there is with it (like launch a missile and when your view is obscured to target because smoke or heat waves, you likely lose the contrast lock on target).

Vikhr doesn't have fragmentation sleeve modeled, again a problem in DCS core as none of the weapons in DCS has fragmentation modeled. So you are firing Vikhr against a soft targets (air, ground or sea) and you can't have the proper effect with it (like with any other weapon).

That as well renders S-8 and S-13 rockets almost useless in KA-50 (as with all modules and like).

Then comes simply the target damage modeling, at this date most should already know that ED is working for it. So we should see a huge difference in the future for better effectiveness for all weapons but it as well requires the another part - a weapon itself, to be able deliver proper force.

When the BS2 receives the proper Shkval modeling, Vikhr gets proper modeling, rockets gets proper modeling, even the cannon gets proper modeling, there is not much to want from a "BS3" as is. You get the few extra things, and that's it.

The BS2 is heavily underutilized by its force capability, just like majority of the other units because DCS core limitations (lack of capabilities).

IGLA, R-73, whatever is just icing on cake. The President-S will be useful against MANPADS, that can't be denied, and that can alone be worth to pay the upgrade.

They don't want it to be dumb[/], they want it to be realistic, not some Frankenstein cobbled together out of other aircrafts' spare parts to fill the role of air-quake dominator

Problem is that those people really want it to be "dumb", and not realistic by any other means than by their definition when it pleases them.

F/A-18C, F-16C, A-10C, AV-8B N/A.... All are having completely unrealistic features just to please those people, and they will allow it because they benefit from it!

For half a decade people showed that KA-50 is capable to carry President-S, but these people who wanted "realism" invented all kind reasons why NOT to have it, being it from "it was just a trial" to "KA-50 is already cancelled and KA-52 is the one" etc. Well, years later far more information has come out and people who talked "for realism" were wrong, and they keep doing it even today because they can't accept that what they don't know, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Some of the people who want things to be realistic are major problem here because they have no context that when things just needs to be worked with educated guesses.

Like example a IFF system. We could already have a fully operational IFF systems on all modules, if it wouldn't have been up to these people who want "100% realism" only based to their knowledge, and when they don't know, they don't allow it.

It is well known public information available for everyone that how a IFF system works, yet to implement it to the game it is not required what so ever that how the IFF "black box" works inside, what is the processing, what are the codes, what is the encryption methods etc. But it doesn't matter. The system is known that when challenge is made, it gets replied and replies are having differences that is as well public information. But this is not enough because these people need to know everything or it is nothing.

Yet, we have people arguing about missiles performances and all, when our radars don't even have a semi-believable RCS modeling or a radar emission modeling. Ultra simple, very basic system that is 1/0. But so many is heartily defending these unrealistic things because they have passion to the topic they argue about (missile performances).

Then is another very heated topic, that will repeat itself all again on each time as there is the logic that these people don't get.

And it is about weapons loadouts. Like example the upcoming DCS: AH-64 Apache module will be in the eye of the storm in a coffee cup.... As when it comes to question, AIM-9's or not? In the recent interview in Fighter Pilots Podcast the person revealed that all US Apaches has been wired and capable to carry Sidewinders just by attaching them to it. But it is not done as it is not the training doctrine, it is not required for operational use, so its not done. Not for technical reasons, but just because someone at the high of the command hierarchy has made their mind that for reasons X, that is not to be done.

Now these same people here are arguing that KA-50 was never able to carry or launch IGLA. Yet there are photographs for KA-50 with IGLA's. There are photographs of KA-50 with R-73's as well! Before these were shown years back, these same minded people (if not same people even) were arguing "No photo = no missiles!" and then the photos were later on shown. Then their attitude changed to invent all kind things to just to say NOT POSSIBLE!

This same thing was with a President-S, it was first reported to be possible use on KA-50, but "no photo = no possibility" until photographs were shown. Then the goal posts were again moved as there is no information of what these naysayers requires at that time.

The logical problem that is in the question and I talk about is about politics, religion and technicalities.

The challenge is that at any given point there is a one person (when you go high enough) that is making the decision. He (or She) is the person who does the decision alone, regardless of any technical limitations or capabilities or what ever. It eventually comes down the pipe all the way down to the grass level where the personnel on the ground has usually no idea what is possible and what is not, as it is written to them in a memo, in a order, in a technical documentation or pilot operation instructions manuals etc. Leaving things out that doesn't matter. If a ministry of defense logistics committee says that weapon X is not to be fielded, then it can be left out and people think "It is not capable to carry it". Even if in the manufacturing side at the design department the engineer responsible for that capability knows otherwise, and it is written in the internal documentation how it was done.

Like the case R-73 for KA-50. It is known it has been gone through trials, it has been shown with it. It is stated in the marketing material for the customers that it is available etc. But what is lacking is the evidence that clearly states in the official documentation "Tests done, did not technically work and couldn't solve the problems - project cancelled". It literally would require a official documentation with the reasons that it was not possible.

And what would that mean? Manufacturer would not even offer it for a sale because it was not technically possible! They tried it, they tested, they really challenged themselves to make it work, but they couldn't. Is there a evidence for that? No....

Instead there is evidence that success had happened, that technically it is possible and those can be offered for the customers as a feature kit if they like so.

When a customer is going to purchase some weapon systems, it is a long long process. And you better not to be selling something that you can not deliver.

The part of the sales is similar like this:

You get the buyers from various countries arrive to your training grounds, and you present them your new weapon and all its capabilities. You do not add weapons to it that you can't sell operational. That is called demonstration. And it is crucial part of the weapons sales, unless politics happens where deals are made with a faith to the partners that they do provide what they talk about. And when you have a "slipper" sales people, this happens:

But even that needs to be backed up with evidence, a documentation that the missiles like R-73 or IGLA etc are only dummies and can not be in fact launched from a KA-50. Is there a such evidence?

F/A-18C, F-16C, A-10C, AV-8B N/A.... All are having completely unrealistic features just to please those people, and they will allow it because they benefit from it!

Please for all us Hornet pilots out there elaborate on your Qoute......

Well said Fri13,

It's crazy how those people complain about the Ka-50 that it was a trail/test frame, this exact fact should make them shut it up. for the following simple facts:

Ka-50 as a trail/ test frame that means they have experimented with it! So, did the experiment stuff that there is no way for it to carry and shoot or stuff within it parameters?! The answer is obvious! So the silly theory from the silly people talking about laser guns on the Ka-50 is really dumb.

And now the USSR/Russian MoD has finished the testing on the Ka-50 and it went to production and canceled later for financial reasons. but they had more faith in the 2 crew variant of the Ka-50 which is called Ka-52! So what did the Ka-52 get?! every thing that was tested on the Ka-50 like AA-weapons, RWR, DIRCM, thermal sensors. And then the Ka-52 got more like Elector-optical RADAR!

So for any smart individual, the seller the USSR/Russian MoD and it's agencies can deliver what they say/claim about their products, obviously YES THEY CAN AND THEY DID... AKA KA-52...

If the Ka-52 was lacking in features then I would believe that the Ka-50 experiment was a failure which is obviously is not the case!

Also the FACT that we have something called Ka-52 that is still in production and in service says a lot of the success of the Ka-50. That would have not been the case if nothing at all came to exist from Kamov and what happened later is that the Russian MoD opted for Mi-28 only and the Kamov attack helicopters were put to death which is not the damn case again!!!!!!

Weta43 I got what I paid ? no i did not.. paid for BS from the beginning and promised the most realistic .. so this is suppose to be an update for gosh sake .. weather terrains and already existing complex aircraft as promised .. terrain as promised etc this is intolerable

Please for all us Hornet pilots out there elaborate on your Qoute......

You are aware that being capable set laser codes to all laser guided weapons in cockpit is unrealistic?

There are suggestions that it should be done only when rearming that in that window you get a input box to type in the laser codes before you accept the rearming. And then get the feature where you tell JTAC etc the code your weapons does have so they can set their laser designators properly.

The radars doesn't have a RCS modeling, so you don't get targets "blinking" at longer ranges or when conditions changes. No proper jamming systems effects etc.

You talk about this real contrast lock system as something that would help you, and it might, it’s also going to be a major pain in the ass locking on all sorts of non targets and jumping around.

What we have know works almost perfectly, it can see anything that lives, including finding targets and airplanes no matter how dark and contrast the background is, something that a real contrast system would make almost impossible

Weta43 I got what I paid ? no i did not.. paid for BS from the beginning and promised the most realistic .. (...)

So if it's not " the most realistic " which is the more realistic consumer grade flight SIM of the Ka-50 that the DCS.Ka-50 falls behind ?

From memory, it pushed computers pretty hard when it was released, what's possible with a computer now wasn't when you paid for it.

You are aware that being capable set laser codes to all laser guided weapons in cockpit is unrealistic?

There are suggestions that it should be done only when rearming that in that window you get a input box to type in the laser codes before you accept the rearming. And then get the feature where you tell JTAC etc the code your weapons does have so they can set their laser designators properly.

 

The radars doesn't have a RCS modelling, so you don't get targets "blinking" at longer ranges or when conditions changes. No proper jamming systems effects etc.

Yes of course but this is not something we asked for as Hornet pilots that falls down to DCS and Coding and the Radar RCS modelling from what i have read is coming at a later date.

So to take it back on Topic i will only speak for myself not the whole HORNET community but we Don't ask for unrealistic, we want the most realistic simulation we can get.,

Weta43 I got what I paid ? no i did not.. paid for BS from the beginning and promised the most realistic .. so this is suppose to be an update for gosh sake .. weather terrains and already existing complex aircraft as promised .. terrain as promised etc this is intolerable

But back to the KA-50, when the model was originally released was you told "oh hang one we as DCS Employees will pour a shit ton of man hours into this at a later stage" i don't think so hence its not a BETA product.

So its only fair you want all the bells and whistles of a New KA-50 and the new technologies used to improve it You pay for it or Fly the Su-25.

Some posts in here really do sound like some people think there entitled to stuff when in reality

and here comes the Truth Bomb NO ONE IS ENTITELD TO SHIT YOU EITHER EARN IT IN LIFE OR YOU PAY FOR IT......

I'm not going to go into semantics here - other people can argue the minutiae of weapon systems better than I.

But having done quite a lot of work in this particular area - that's real world, paid work, not keyboard warrior work - I can comment on this.

<snip lots of other stuff>

 

When a customer is going to purchase some weapon systems, it is a long long process. And you better not to be selling something that you can not deliver.

The part of the sales is similar like this:

 

You get the buyers from various countries arrive to your training grounds, and you present them your new weapon and all its capabilities. You do not add weapons to it that you can't sell operational. That is called demonstration. And it is crucial part of the weapons sales, unless politics happens where deals are made with a faith to the partners that they do provide what they talk about. And when you have a "slipper" sales people, this happens:

Bless. Your naivety is staggering.

Look at the F35. Or perhaps the F16 would be a better example. It took up to about Block 5x before it actually had the capabilities being offered to export customers when they signed the paper.

No?

OK. Look at the sales pitch for the Apache. It took Westland doing a huge bunch of re-engineering (paid for by me and other British taxpayers) to get it mission capable in the way it was sold to be.

There are loads more examples where a piece of equipment (tank, aircraft, ship, software, whatever) is sold on the basis of what it will eventually be capable of. Usually accompanied by massive other trade deals (buy this and we'll buy a billion tonnes of your cabbages), bribes (you really ought to come and see this product demo in The Cayman Islands, and of course you can bring your family and friends. On us, naturally), political sweeteners (buy this and we'll assist you with that deal you're trying to do with your neighbour) or threats (buy this or we'll assist your neighbour with that deal...and they'll buy our weapons instead, at a discounted rate).

Again, I would like to see Iglas on the DCS Ka-50. I definitely want to see President. And I would be delighted with a Shkval that worked properly, even if it made life harder (because it will lock on a dead target or a rock or whatever). If it also had FLIR or even Mercury (or similar) then I'd be delighted. But the arguments in this thread are, while entertaining...actually forget that. This thread is too entertaining to suggest it's run its course.

You talk about this real contrast lock system as something that would help you, and it might, it’s also going to be a major pain in the ass locking on all sorts of non targets and jumping around.

 

What we have know works almost perfectly, it can see anything that lives, including finding targets and airplanes no matter how dark and contrast the background is, something that a real contrast system would make almost impossible

You don't have much experience with the Shkval, do you?

1. The range at which it can lock onto targets gets artificially limited by weather and time of day. An aircraft can be perfectly visible against the sky and within 7km, but you can't lock it because of that dumb limitation.

2. Without range information from the laser the Shkval sometimes starts drifting out of control. You either somehow deal with it or constantly waste precious laser durability. Wouldn't need the laser if the Shkval just tracked based on contrast.

3. The tracking box size is completely useless at this point. With contrast lock you could increase its size and potentially lock onto an area to observe it. Ties in with #2

4. Everything is perfectly visible on the Shkval, because the Shkval doesn't render any shadows or precipitation.

No, the Shkval doesn't work perfectly. It works okay 90% of the time, but the remaining 10% are really getting annoying 11 years later.

Sure, contrast lock will introduce new problems, but at least it should make the Shkval more consistent. If I have to press a few more buttons to make it work, so be it. Still better than having to reposition just because in that exact spot the Shkval starts drifting for no good reason.

You don't have much experience with the Shkval, do you?

 

1. The range at which it can lock onto targets gets artificially limited by weather and time of day. An aircraft can be perfectly visible against the sky and within 7km, but you can't lock it because of that dumb limitation.

 

2. Without range information from the laser the Shkval sometimes starts drifting out of control. You either somehow deal with it or constantly waste precious laser durability. Wouldn't need the laser if the Shkval just tracked based on contrast.

 

3. The tracking box size is completely useless at this point. With contrast lock you could increase its size and potentially lock onto an area to observe it. Ties in with #2

 

4. Everything is perfectly visible on the Shkval, because the Shkval doesn't render any shadows or precipitation.

 

No, the Shkval doesn't work perfectly. It works okay 90% of the time, but the remaining 10% are really getting annoying 11 years later.

 

Sure, contrast lock will introduce new problems, but at least it should make the Shkval more consistent. If I have to press a few more buttons to make it work, so be it. Still better than having to reposition just because in that exact spot the Shkval starts drifting for no good reason.

Of course, I just think Fri13 is over blowing it a bit, their posts sound like they want more capability that it will become some kind of anti fighter monster if it only had contrast detection, and I think we both agree that’s not exactly always going to be the case if such a system existed in sim

Of course, I just think Fri13 is over blowing it a bit, their posts sound like they want more capability that it will become some kind of anti fighter monster if it only had contrast detection, and I think we both agree that’s not exactly always going to be the case if such a system existed in sim

Not really, the RADAR in the game is broken it can lock on stuff from behind buildings!! even the heatseekers samething! Is it real no it's NOT!

So asking for stuff to be simulated like Shkval contrast lock and RADAR simulating will fix a lot in the game. and the people complaining about performance should buy new machines...

(…) and the people complaining about performance should buy new machines...

Classic ;)

is there any news on this project?

is there any news on this project?

Last official news IIRC were that the project is stopped until Mi-24P is finished and Huey/Mi-8 multicrew added. So all stopped until next year at least.