Black Shark 3?

"What annoys me is all the contorted words from people trying to pretend to themselves that what never happened happened"

I'll agree with that :).

Also... Just to throw it out there...

It's also super annoying when people jump on a high horse about realism when they don't even know what that means. I'm not referencing you Weta... just in general. Like when people say they'll "never use the G-Override" but they have no idea whether the missile they just fired has the "exact" performance characteristics of the real one, and all the while they're using the "realism" argument to poke jabs at the folks who are OK with a specific variety of realism license.

It's high-horsery :).

Fantasy weapons? Where?

On the KA-50... The Iglas and the third pylons...

They were never provably done that way.

The likely PLAN was to do so, and then the supposed plans got "down sized"... so it never happened.

But ED have decided (rightfully so IMO) to make a KA-50ED that is built the way that the manufacturer and the RU Gov likely would have gone had they not suffered some money issues.

Message has been deleted. Reason: OT

:megalol: give us a favour plz, get some rest before post in a international forum. ;)

And please, stay on topic.

What are we really discussing?

A nonsense.

I mean, IMHO, we are discussing where is the limit, what is enough to be simulated....There is no truth. It is very subjective.

Some people thinks that only real weapon systems must be modelled. I agree with that. But what is considered a real weapon system? If I have the entire drawings with the detail engineering but the system is not built....Can be considered real? We need some proof...but What´s happen if we do not have proof? What proof we need to consider that a system is real? It is not easy to answer...For example, the Silent Blackhawk...We do not have a picture of it, only a tail boom. We have some pictures of the H-20 chinese bomber....The problem is, that pictures are fake.

Gladly, we do not set the limit, ED set the limit. We can buy it or not buy it. That´s easy. :smilewink:

Thats not called fantasy weapons, as it was viable variants for all we know where and are currently in operation. We cant get the facts on the internet, but im pretty positive ED can with their other ventures and contracts.

Anyways the stuff ive seen in their screenshots of new model directly reflects what you can see open source aka pics of ka50 with same systems as seen on the developer screen shots.

"We cant get the facts on the internet, but im pretty positive ED can with their other ventures and contracts"

Oh... so you think that ED have access to classified russian docs that confirm the KA-50ED (Why would the Russians call it the ED??? How odd...) and...

THEY DECIDED TO MAKE A SIMULATED SECRET RUSSIAN WEAPON????

Good Bye ED. It was nice.

LOL...

Seems Legit.

"We cant get the facts on the internet, but im pretty positive ED can with their other ventures and contracts"

 

Oh... so you think that ED have access to classified russian docs that confirm the KA-50ED (Why would the Russians call it the ED??? How odd...) and...

 

THEY DECIDED TO MAKE A SIMULATED SECRET RUSSIAN WEAPON????

 

 

Good Bye ED. It was nice.

 

LOL...

 

Seems Legit.

I think you know what i mean but if not your loss.:thumbup:

Gladly, we do not set the limit, ED set the limit. We can buy it or not buy it. That´s easy. :smilewink:

ED is the developer team only and do not set any limit with what is supposed to be planned. We can suggest things as customers and stop your pissing attitude. You are not moderator let the people give some personal opinion.

(...)We cant get the facts on the internet, but im pretty positive ED can with their other ventures and contracts.(...)

As has been said a few times, E.D. have said on the Russian boards that a Ka-50 with 3 sets of pylons and Igla mounted Never Existed. Chizh has said it's a product of E.D.'s imagination - perhaps taking the line that Kamov probably meant to do this at some stage, or it would have been the next logical step in the evolution - but in the end, not because it actually existed, simply (In Chizh's own words) "because we wanted to".

That's an honest answer.

Nothing more need be said about the reasons.

Any attempt to suggest it's rooted in secret knowledge is ....

Well we've covered that ground.

I guess there's only 2 questions left:

1/ Is it the "thin end of the wedge"? are we on our way to DCS.Future_Battlefields ?

Only time will tell.

I hope not - a lot of time and effort has gone into developing a reputation for realistic aircraft, FM, system modelling and building a business and following on that reputation.

As has been mentioned by M1Combat - it's a game, and pretending it's real, and that all the way things are done in the game are real is self delusional... (Generally I'm in favour of things that make DCS more accessible to beginners and casual gamers - AI navigators that mark the map - even an easy refuelling option)

Some of the fun though is in thinking to yourself "this must be quite like how you'd really do it" (& when I finally got to take the stick and fly inverted, or loops & Cuban 8's etc - DCS was quite like the real thing.

You can't say that to yourself when you're playing at flying a fantasy aircraft though can you ? (& yes I know the Ka-50ED is only a little bit fantasy, but then we're back at the start of that wedge again..

2/ When do we get the P-270 Moskit back on the Su-33 ?

Personally, I think the Ka-50 is a special case. So far, an old prototype has been simulated. As real as they could make it. Now, I hope they will dig and pester Kamov on what would have been if they had brought the Ka-50 to full production. What were the latest plans? What would the cockpit have looked like? Is there a latest prototype at some stage of completion out there? Are there any already drawn up schematics? The leap from Ka-50 #25 to modern Ka-52 seems very dramatic. Surely, there was a Ka-50 that would have been near what the Ka-52 became.

So far, I think reality would be Ka-52 style wing with 3 pylons ( why would you make 2 different wings? ) / Iglas available as loadout (it's in the Ka-50 #25s cockpit already. A-A selector switch ) / probably President-S (already on the Ka-52) / SAMSHIT in ball turret (already present on Ka-50N, Ka-50sh).

And of course, ED giving us a more functional Shkval.

As for the rest, radar, RWR, ECM, special systems, I don't know. The Ka-52 was meant to be the Group Leader and Command Controller, hanging back from the battlefield while the Ka-50's did the attack runs. One could therefore question whether the Ka-50 would need any of this.

I want to keep this as close to reality as possible, but we are going to soon need a Russian heli that can confront an Apache on equal terms. Of course, in reality, this would be the Ka-52, but I doubt were are going to get that for now. :D

 

1/ Is it the "thin end of the wedge"? are we on our way to DCS.Future_Battlefields ?

I wouldn't mind it, any more than I mind FC3. It just depends on what you want to allow on your battlefields.

ED is known for their realism, which is what most of us are into, but they also have to make money, and there are a lot of "Arma" style players out there who don't like 700 page instruction manuals.

They can have their own servers.

ED makes easy money, continues to make us awesome realistic simulations, Win / Win!

x

… ED is known for their realism, which is what most of us are into, but they also have to make money, and there are a lot of "Arma" style players out there who don't like 700 page instruction manuals…

The Modern Air Combat (MAC) will be created for this.

Sorry, but I do not understand the unpersuasive arguments about why drag fiction into the DCS World.

Digital Combat Simulator World

Digital Combat Simulator World (DCS World) 2.5 is a free-to-play digital battlefield game.

 

Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible…

We will get this glass cockpit?

We always needed an AFAC and I hope they introduce AI Ka-52 with datalink compatibility to share contacts for Ka-50 at night. At least so we save the search job at night. Also we can get radio warnings from Ka-52 AI, as incoming air threats.

I appreciate any small improve. This was not a mass production so I don’t expect much.

Oh I realise that E.D. modelled a version - of a specific, actual aircraft of which only a few similarly configured aircraft were built.

 

The difference between the limited number of aircraft configured in the way DCS.Ka-50 is currently configured, and the version that you're so keen to see, is that the version that you're keen to see was never built at all.

 

It is a fantasy aircraft.

So You don't realize.

Lets try to draw you a illustrating picture:

[ATTACH]212270[/ATTACH]

The only evidence you can put forward that it might have been built is that there's a position on a switch that you think implies an intent to build such a version at some time, and that some completely different other aircraft have similar weapons systems.

You really are stuck to the logical question, arguing that a question is a argument.

Your suggestion that E.D. prove that there were none of the fantasy version you're awaiting (which they're hardly likely to spend time sourcing given they've already explicitly said it's a fantasy aircraft they're making "because we want to"...) is a logical error - you can't prove a negative by giving an example, the onus is always on the person making the positive claim - in this case that a 6 pylon, Igla carrying Ka-50 (not Ka-50-2, Not Ka-52) actually existed, and so far, you've presented nothing but various very long ways of saying "I think it might have happened, and I'm going to present my wishful thinking as evidence"...

First of all, I DO NOT CARE ABOUT IGLA THAT I WANT TO CARRY IT!

How many times I need to directly point to YOU that I HAVE NO PERSONAL WISH TO FIELD IGLA?

I DON'T CARE ABOUT IGLA THAT I WANT TO FLY WITH IT!

So stop acting.

I only point the facts, that Kamov engineers designed the KA-50 to be carrying a A-A missiles. Just like I pointed you the facts that they were the feedback from the pilots, they were tested and trialed and they were included in the production standard that was done AFTER ED!

That is the basis for ED to begin with, the fact that Russian Government acknowledged pilots feedback from actual war experience, commanced tests and trials, and made the production order for Kamov.

I don't mind that you're keen for a more capable aircraft, I'm slightly disappointed that E.D. have decided to follow that path, and I'm surprised that some of the people posting in favour of adding fantasy weapons systems to the Ka-50 have been very self righteous in other threads about denouncing aids for the casual player

WHAT I WANT are these things,

after decade of the release of Black Shark module that ED will:

- Implement all the missing features (ie. marked in the manual and in the cockpit as "not implemented" or that were designed to be added by Kamov)

- Fix the Skhval contrast based tracking system by actually implementing a contrast detection and contrast based tracking without cheating (using Unit ID etc, so you can't example lock a destroyed unit because it has no longer Unit ID).

- Fix the Vikhr capability to destroy air targets effectively by implementing its fragmentation sleeve and the A-A mode and proximity fuze.

- Fix the unrealistically detailed Skhval TV image, separating it from the mirrors resolution.

- Fix Hover function (trim to perfect hover, hands-off from HOTAS and only press to activate the hover, and the KA-50 will start to slide all over places and eventually crash, all AP channels correctly On).

I do not wish, dream or want third pylon. I can discuss about it, but I do not personally want it. But I do not attack against people who would like you do, I only raise the questions, logical possibilities that what there could be or couldn't be.

(such as labelling the ability to mark your position on the moving map without resorting to dead-reckoning navigation a 'cheat').

Then go back to that thread to argue about it, that is not here.

What annoys me is all the contorted words from people trying to pretend to themselves that what never happened happened, that wishful thinking is proof, and that people aren't just happy to get a laser cannon added to their aircraft.

You are the only one who is talking about fantasies, about laser cannons and "no proof" etc.

I don't remember ever seeing a single photo of a KA-50 carrying any bomb. With your logic then that is unrealistic that KA-50 has FAB-250 and FAB-500 in its arsenal.

Regardless that the manufacturer has listed them, presented them in their procedures and it is their doctrinal feature, just like the IGLA became as one.

Because you don't find something in picture, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

People like 10 years ago were calling that President-S was fantasy, that it was never in the KA-50. Regardless then that photos were later presented to them that it was fielded.

Instead they just moved the goalposts by defining that our KA-50 is the specific prototype unit (#25) and the President-S was in the other ones, as the port number was #18 in the photos.

Well what happened again was later the photos of our specific KA-50 unit with the President-S. But it was not accepted by people like you, because it was not the timeframe our variant was modeled. Duh!

So again moved goalposts, they whined that the KA-50 is a prototype so it shouldn't exist. Then it was shown that there are the production standard and serial production upgrades, that didn't get approved because there is no photos of such claimed that our KA-50 is the latest and the greatest and cancelled.

And then again shown photos of the more advanced cockpits, that some tried to claim that they were from the KA-52, regardless that everyone should see they are from the single-seat KA-50.

No matter what is done, people like you go around and try to talk that everything is just fantasies, doesn't exist, is not possible, is not even remotely likely that something like that would ever anyone do.

Like here now. Someone laughs and makes them look childish when they do not realize that swapping a wing in a helicopter is as easy as taking bolts off, detach wires and do reverse with the new wing.

Physically changing a wing from one that has two stations to one that has three, is not work that requires whole helicopter to be redesigned from the scratch.

Moving a one instrument in the cockpit doesn't require a new helicopter to be built.

Rearranging cockpit avionics doesn't require new helicopter to be built.

If we look the KA-50 new model that ED has shown to us:

And then we compare it to the similar KA-52 image:

We can see that they are actually having the same size wings. Only the third station has been added, wingtip pod has been redesigned but it is basically same wing.

Don't believe it?

Lets do a very simple image overlay:

So regardless that the cameras do not have same perspective, we can align the helicopter to similar distance of the wings (like cannon, engines, landing gear and rotor mast) so we have easily pretty good accuracy of few centimeters, enough to see the difference.

So what is the Eagle Dynamics really thinking?

They are thinking logically, that what KA-50 is if it would be ordered and operational like KA-52 is.

As the KA-52 was designed to be the group commander. A flight consisting of one KA-52 as group leader, and then three KA-50.

Where everyone is updated to same specs, but the KA-52 has the commander making the tactical decisions based the information everyone else is delivering over datalink, be it the wingmen, the KA-52 ground and air radar, the SAM network, the recon teams on ground, the whole intelligence network transmitting the information of the existing targets that were uploaded in the computer on the begin of the mission.

And that one person was there to do all the planning and commanding the group.

The wingmen didn't require navigator, they didn't need air radar, they didn't need ground radar or anything. Why? because their task was to fly to the ingress point and wait the attack command. If the air threat was spotted, it was task of the helicopters to self-defend themselves and inform the nearby CAP to destroy the target. But as it can take few minutes for one to reach them, self-defence capability is important, why Air-to-Air missiles were required to be able carry in missions where the CAP is not available or there is high risk for surprised (mountainous areas etc) and what is the best thing you can get on close-range? R-73. Extremely agile, HMD targeted, radar targeted in KA-52 etc. Just get the agile KA-50 turn its nose on target and launch, and get back to maneuvering.

But R-73 was only for fast moving fighters at above. Not for anything else. That is why Vikhr and Ataka-V has all the Air-to-Air capability. Difference is that Vikhr has both in one missile, requiring only programming before launch. Ataka-V has three different warheads, so three different missiles required to be carried specified by the target is it hard, soft or air. Vikhr can use normal mode for hard targets, and A-A mode for air targets and soft targets. A true multipurpose missile. Incapable to be jammed from the target side unless you can blind the Skhval camera itself in launching platform.

There is no lase cannons, there is no R-27R mounted, there is no nuclear bombs delivery, there is no submerged capabilities or crew compartment for a 18 men.

What the ED is planning is to simulate the existing aircrafts, if not in the specific year of 2001 or 2005, like they did now, then something like 2008 or 2010.

Just like the KA-50 (not the specific airframe) received a three MFCD in early as 1998, and then refined in operational condition at around 2008.

The information is out there. That KA-50 is far more advanced than the one in DCS.

Question is that how far ED is willing to go, and how far they can go, to get the required information details to build the KA-50 as it was developed further from the one we have in DCS.

And that is as well question of the time and effort it takes to make such a module, why it needs to be a paid, instead just being the existing cockpit retexturing mod or slight 3D model upgrade.

ED has lots of choices, lots of possibilities, lots of them that WE (including YOU) do not know nothing about! Because KA-50 is even today a very well kept secret.

We very unlikely do not never see anything like that, but what we might see is refined avionics as the production standard did after our KA-50 design.

And if someone has keen eyes, they might even spot that in the KA-50 3D models ED released, there is no more the Counter Measurement panel on top right corner of the cockpit....

It can be because they have not yet made such work, or that it wouldn't be anyways visible in external model.

But just a possibility even there.

Here are two other logical questions (that you will find very illogical as you don't even follow the discussion as all you do is think your fantasies of lasers and what ever).

- If the ED will do what ever they want, is it worth of the cost of new module price to 3D model a third station and adding the IGLA in the arsenal and launch parameters? Something that modders would be able to do even if given little more freedom to script the guidance?

- If the work is heavy and big, why would ED give a huge price benefit for existing BS2 license owners? That should indicate the additional feature is very small, if we would get example -80% in price? But then again most likely already owns BS2, so it is more like a -50%.

But the fact still remains.

KA-50 was not left to the state that our KA-50 in DCS now presents. It was developed further, more advanced, more capable, easier to fly and operate.

There are limited amount of public and easily found information, but ED had contacts at Kamov decade ago and access to one of those. They had access to specifications etc, so why they wouldn't have now?

So if someone that could pull it off, is the ED, no one else.

So what is the "fantasy" in this scenario, that ED would make a upgraded module for a version that does exist, but that didn't get in serial production. Maybe even combine couple variants systems to one if they were meant to be in one.

What we already know is that KA-50 was meant to or has:

- Have A-A missiles

- Has President-S (and why to field that system on helicopter that is not in service? It was after all tested on Mi-8 and used in KA-52 etc....)

- Has FLIR

- Has glass cockpit

- Has many other upgrades we do not know.

- Had serial production standard and approvement to start it, but didn't get the funding.

The ED has huge puzzle in their hands as KA-50 is so special weapon. But if they can sit down and talk to some of the people, and get enough information of the ideas, future plans etc. They can very well pull off something that is very realistic, yet "didn't happen".

Want to talk about fantasies? The F-16 that ED is making, is unique, likely one-of-the-kind.

As even one F-16 ground crew personnel told that you would not find in a airbase two same kind F-16's, even when they have the same designation, block upgrade etc.

So should we just say that ED is again doing something fantasy kind? Well, that is the bad news as reality is not that you have just one kind coming out in everyplace.

Just like Su-27, there likely ain't two same kinds. All kind variations, all kind modifications, all kinds preference based changes etc.

It is the people like you who get stuck that a aircraft module should be made from the most produced variant and that has same features.

Reason why we do not get enjoy from more fancier ones like how many different Mi-24's there were. Only because some were built 1500 ones with specific weapons, and others like 20 or 150.

And now we have situation that ED is giving us not just ONE, but TWO helicopters. Everyone can buy the Black Shark 2 and fly that with updated graphics and missing features added.

But those who want, can buy the Black Shark 3 and enjoy from the different kind helicopter to fly.

It is like owning a AV-8B N/A or AV-8B+. Or Mig-29S and Mig-29G.

 

We will get this glass cockpit?

I don't think anyone can even believe that would be so. But we don't have the cockpit modeled.

That picture is just from more advanced upgraded KA-50.

We always needed an AFAC and I hope they introduce AI Ka-52 with datalink compatibility to share contacts for Ka-50 at night. At least so we save the search job at night. Also we can get radio warnings from Ka-52 AI, as incoming air threats.

The KA-50 needs the FLIR or at least LLTV to perform in such situation. As the datalink only gives the target position in general area (accuracy is fairly high, depending the designator range accuracy, like is it in +/- 2 meters or +/- 100 meters). The KA-50 has itself a accurate position not just via INS, but as well via GLONASS and the ground doppler radar (very accurate for tracking distance traveled), so the KA-50 knows its exact location (altitude, position) and rest is about Skhval accuracy (angles) and laser ranging accuracy.

Then the receiving KA-50 question is how accurately can the Skhval position the camera for coordinates it receives, like if there is 0.5 degree difference, it is big one when target is at 5-6 km from you.

And all that means that if you can't see the target yourself, you don't benefit anything via datalink. You only know that there is a such target but you can't engage it as you are just shooting blindly at the darkness.

While I would as well take the KA-52 as target designator, but it is not really required anymore as you can have AI flight leader that does it to you, but should just start to provide data instead engage targets. As well we would need the upgrade that we can receive the data over other sources via datalink, so any AFAC, be it a drone or a recon team, can send you target locations.

So I wish in some time in future we would see recon/sniper teams, that would designate the targets. Even if over radio, but use laser designator to guide your launched laser guided missiles in KA-50, Su-25 etc.

I appreciate any small improve. This was not a mass production so I don’t expect much.

KA-50 was ordered for serial production after the war and the trials after it to modify the KA-50 for the service. But it was not executed for mass production (like 50-100 units).

What is the reason that there were still development and all kind variations in cockpit and weapons systems.

So regardless the amount of produced versions, it would be enough to just get the information of the specifications that it would be. For the realistic cockpit it would be nice to have at least blueprints or some photos etc. Rest is just really the "artistic" freedom. As we do not need 3D laser scanned cockpits to get a accurate good cockpits, we need just some photographs from different angles to show the smaller details how things goes.

So You don't realize.

 

Lets try to draw you a illustrating picture…

Of course, people with a rich imagination can endlessly to practice their fantasies, fueling hopes to wishful thinking. However, from these exercises, unfortunately, fantasy will never become a reality. :)

I feel this discussion is derailing a bit.

The question has never been if its physically possible to attach Igla's to the fuselage of the helicopter. Of course you can. With enough ductape you can attach Iglas, R-77 and everything you need.

NO need to be sarcastically insulting with the duct tape analogy.

The KA-50-2 from 1997 (and even presented in MAX 2005 as repainted etc) was with the third station that was dedicated to the A-A missile.

In everywhere the third station is dedicated to A-A missile. Be it a KA-50-2 or a KA-52.

Reason, way too far away from the wing attachment to be able withstand anything heavy.

The R-73 missile weight is little over 100kg. That is a lot. And the KA-50-2 went through the trials, test flights, avionic systems etc in the Turkey. You do not enter to those hundreds of millions dollars competitions with a 3D model and explain that if they choose you, you will make it functional.

When a country wants to buy a weapon system, it needs to be functional. If the question is about AA system, you need to be able to activate the system and shoot down the target drone if the buyer so wish.

If it is helicopter, you need to be able fly it around, let their test pilots to evaluate the avionics, capabilities etc so they can write their report and the whole commission can go through every single piece of the weapon that experts has seen if they so want.

And if we compare the KA-50 and KA-52 as ED has provided us the new 3D model of the KA-50 as is free for everyone, we can see that wings are not longer.

What the Kamov really simply did, they took the wing and added a third station on it.

That is not question is that wing ever attached to KA-50 airframe, but that is what they did for the KA-50 wing they used in KA-52.

The question though, is, can it be integrated into the Helicopters systems.

Your logic that án infantry guy can carry an igla doesnt hold.

His logic is this:

IGLA is man portable shoulder launched Anti-Air missile. The missile itself is nothing else than stored in the tube. The launcher (gun) itself is the crucial part of it, a small device that has battery, trigger and logic to listen the IR seeker sensitivity and then signal the shooter that heat is detected via audio/lamp. What happens when the shooter squeeze the trigger, is own discussion. But it is nothing complex at all.

Now to add that to a attack helicopter requires three things:

1) Physically mount the missile on the airframe securely.

2) Physically get the connection to the launcher (firing computer system) via cables.

3) Program the weapons system to receive the status from the missile and send the signal to lock on the heat and ignite its rocket.

If you have a engineers who can communicate with each others (IGLA engineers and the Kamov engineers), it doesn't take much to get them to work around a way how you would use such a missile. You need couple engineers to modify the wing to make the third pylon and pull the extra wires and attach to the computer.

Are you suggesting you can just bolt it to the wing, and then the pilot is supposed to open the door and pull the trigger?

Why to be so nasty again via sarcasm?

And how is he supposed to hear the lock-tone from inside the cockpit over the noice of the rotors?

Really?

I am 100% sure you could stick Iglas to the wing of a KA-50. you could,probably even do the wiring to get it integrated

So why to be so insulting toward others with stupid sarcasm?

but there are still no proof, no anectdotes, no photos, nothing - that this has ever been done.

and that is where this discussion really should end.

I don't recall ever seeing a single KA-50 with bombs in its wings.

LETS REMOVE THE BOMBS!

Now. we ARE appearantly still getting this fantasy feature - so again. What are we really discussing?

You are not discussing anything. You are just insulting people with claims of fantasies. You have not raised a single logical question, raised simple possibilities of the features, not done any single comparison between different versions of KA-50 and variants.

What I have done, is to question the existing cockpit logic, translation, capabilities. Compared them to the more modern variants, compared the rare photographs of various different ports, questioning the functions we should have through various historical development phases, and raising questions that what would there need to be changed to make something possible, if at all!

Personally I do not agree with the third station, and why? Because it adds too many other questions and problems in logic.

As adding a third station is not just that visual 3D model and having missiles there. As all those are linked to other systems as well. And the designers and engineers doing those have logic in there, that they follow and adjust based the pilots and doctrine requirements.

Example, here is a KA-52 early version that has just a two stations on both wings:

• You can see that they have the same weapons configuration panel at the center, with two stations.
  
• The datalink is on left side of the co-pilot optical sight.
  
• The AP channels are on right side of the pilot HUD.
  
• etc.
  

Compare that to the more modern three station KA-52:

• Now you can see that there are no more the weapon configuration panel.
  
• The datalink has been moved between the pilots at bottom of center panel.
  
• The AP channels are moved to top of center panel below gear lever.
  
• The Co-Pilot optical sight has been removed.
  
• etc
  

So how do they know what weapons they have selected?

Well, there is a another modern KA-52 variant showing that:

• In that you can see the leftmost screen showing the weapons status and configuration. All three stations and their targeting configuration.
  
• You can as well see that datalink panel has been changed to just two row one.
  
• The AP channels are one row instead two row.
  
• Gear leveler is positioned to middle of center panel.
  

If any of these things do not interest you to observe, think and wonder why things are done as you see, why they are moved around in different ways, what there really is. And you haven't. All you do is talk about duct tape and laser ponies or what ever fantasies by insulting people who actually are more interested to learn, study and discuss about the such airframes that there are.

I need to say that I don't think that you are ready to say anything about what are the possibilities and what are not.

And let me as well add a Google translated message from Chizh.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3951729&postcount=163

 

"Nobody hits science fiction and everything is done on the basis of real-world development and experiments.

As for the game, as always, everything is in the hands of the host. What kind of helicopters he will deliver will be."

So we should remember, ED is doing not fantasy, but exactly as I am here telling, going through the data, the sources, the information and finding out that how KA-50 evolved and what kind modifications there were done.

But before anything can be made, said, etc. We need to know what is the purpose of the KA-50 project to begin with. Then what was done with the project, what are the different development phases, results, findings etc.

We need to find out how and what did change in the purpose of the KA-50 project.

We already know that KA-50 was meant to be put in production and speed up the KA-52 project. But something happened and KA-52 is now in use, and we (public) do not know much at all about KA-50 itself.

ED is not doing a fantasy aircraft where it has a AIM-120 or JSOW and evades all missiles and radars by its plasma field generator.

When odd things are found, questions should be raised. And if someone can't directly answer to them, you are working only with the logic. With logic you can come up with the conclusion that why something exist or how it is used, but not very specific if source information is already very limited.

Example, even today I fully wonder that what was the reason that in Su-27S the SPO-15 was placed at the bottom left corners of the cockpit? Even today I have no idea as I can't even find any logical explanation for that position. In some Mi-24 it was attached next to HUD or in others moved near the HUD etc.

Such things are not done unless idea is just to "squeeze it in" to get it listen in specification list, so you can point your finger at it when any government official is demanding to know does the weapon have that feature "There it is, see, under the seat... Not easy to see, but it is there!"

And let me as well add a Google translated message from Chizh.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...&postcount=163

 

"Nobody hits science fiction and everything is done on the basis of real-world development and experiments.

As for the game, as always, everything is in the hands of the host. What kind of helicopters he will deliver will be."

<…>

Pull a single phrase out of the context of the whole discussion in Russian, and bring it in proof of your own illusions?! You are the best! :megalol:

Pull a single phrase out of the context of the whole discussion in Russian, and bring it in proof of your own illusions?! You are the best! :megalol:

That is his message, linked to the discussion so anyone can go to read the question and his answer.

You have the illusions, not me.

I am not demanding third pylon.

I am not demanding IGLAs or R-73.

I am not even demanding glass cockpit.

So keep your illusions by yourself.

The point still is, ED is not doing fantasy aircraft that shoots lasers, kills unicorns and defy the physics by flying at Mach 10.

Выдернуть одну-единственную фразу из контекста целой дискуссии на русском языке, и привести её в доказательство собственных иллюзий?! Ты лучший! :megalol:

I like your enthusiasm, heart, direction and way of thinking Fri13.

Also... I read through the RU threads and I think your point is super well made and I love what ED is planning.

It's all correct choices IMO :)

@fri13 about the Ka-52 as AFAC at night. Remember the Ka-50 carry the illumination S-8 rockets. Will be great get contacts vía datalink from Ka-52 and just shot illumination rockets to this marked position. Ka-52 can save you load of work and improve the situation awareness. The only ED should do is let Ka-52 AI be in the same Ka-50 group. Thinking about systems compatibility

Would love to see an AI Ka-52.

As for the Shkval, according to Chizh and Laivynas, it was eventually dumped.

As per S.E. Bulba, replaced on the Ka-52 with Goes-451.

It would make a lot of sense to have a Ka-50 with the Goes-451. This gives you FLIR and the same system the Ka-52 is using. I can't see running around using ancient spotting flares on a modern 2019 battlefield :megalol:, when you have an advanced Ka-52 sending you target data. Shooting blindly into the dark seems ridiculous and "fantasy".

Hey, Chizh.

 

 

Could you say that in English? I can't get it to translate well.

 

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

привет, Чиж

 

Не могли бы вы сказать это по-английски? Я не могу заставить его хорошо переводить.

 

 

спасибо.

 

Finally Shkval usage was cancelled. And for sure for certain reasons.

By Shkval, do you mean the FLIR (SAMSHIT), or the Day Scope we have on the Sim as well?

Day Scope

Wow, so what would they use to lock targets with now? Some new electro-optical system?

 

 

Any links to what replaced it? And do you have plans to use it on the Ka-50ED?

Сейчас на Ка-52 стоит круглосуточная обзорно-прицельная система ГОЭС-451 (GOES-451).

 

Смотри стр.4 (PDF).

Now ka-52 is a round-the-clock review and sighting system goes-451 (GOES-451). (Yandex Translate).

x

Now ka-52 is a round-the-clock review and sighting system goes-451 (GOES-451). (Yandex Translate).

Video from GOES-451 (in Syria)

Would be so nice to have that in the upcoming upgrade!:thumbup: