Black Shark 3 official photos.

You have a problem understanding what a prototype is.

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.

A prototype is a envisioned product that is in the state of development (beta). Therefore, only because a button is labeled A-A (hat switch) does not mean the helicopter will use A-A equipment, it´s there for testing the cockpit layout or so. Still, A-A missiles were not tested ONCE on Ka50, maybe the doctrine or priorities changed along the way. Point is it´s there, but it was never used as far as we know.

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.

You have a problem with evidence and how to find it properly. When you are asked for evidence of it ever being fired, or to show how the HUD looks like when it´s fired, you turn the question upside down just to try to confuse everyone around you by saying: "where is the evidence against it?".

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.

One cannot talk sense with you, when lack of evidence, is evidence for you that something exists!

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 keep showing Ka52, what do you know about Ka52, or anyone else for that matter?

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

Have you seen the HUD modes, do you know how the systems work? In these helicopters everything is coopering with each other, there are very few systems, if any, that are completely isolated.

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.

You cannot remove them as if they were constants, they are part of a formula which is the whole helicopter. Many of these systems, including the ones we got, rely on a newer avionics suite we know NOTHING about.

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.

That´s evidence that BS3 is a bad idea for DCS that advertises itself as a realistic simulator.

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).

And we are here for realism.

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

You show me pictures that are available online, but without telling me how the systems work, show me documents first!

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!

You can start by explaining me how the weapons system is capable of selecting single pylons (since each pylon has a different weapon on the #7th picture you posted) and at the same time, explain to me how it´s capable of handling 2 extra weapon stations.

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?

Because as far as I have researched, our pilotage and weapons suite is K-041, and that only handles 4 stations. You would need to know something I don´t about the Ka52`s K-806 which can handle 6 stations. Good luck searching.

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.

Hey look, I got a nut cracker for you, have a look at this car:

 

It´s an Audi, because it bears the emblem. This means that the car exists, because I showed you a picture, tell me where can I buy it? I want to buy it, show me where. You will not find it in any catalogue because it´s a prototype, but I don´t care, I showed you a photo, and I want to buy it. Find it for me. (Bear in mind, I showed you a photo, which is evidence that it exists, most of what you state is in the format: "prove to me it doesn´t exist"). And when you find me my car so that I can buy it, I am also pretty sure that there are invisible alien saucers flying around. My evidence is that you have to prove me with evidence against it, otherwise it exists. Good luck finding me my car that I wish to buy and the invisible saucers that no one has seen, smelled or touched. But they exist, because you cannot disprove me, or can you? Your logic, have fun. (Point of the matter is, we don´t disprove of your pictures, but rather implementing something that is not known enough about. Implementing systems that are insufficiently described.)

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:

"According to information published by the Russian Helicopters holding, 17 Ka-50 helicopters were built taking into account the prototypes of the B-80. The helicopter was formally in the series until 2008. It is clear that such an insignificant number of combat vehicles could not have significantly increased the strike potential of the Ground Forces Aviation. However, two Ka-50s from Torzhok as part of a combat strike group (BUG) took part in hostilities in the North Caucasus. "

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:

"According to Military Balance 2016, there are currently no Ka-50s in combat helicopter regiments of army aviation. Several aircraft in flight condition are located on the territory of the Ukhtomsk Helicopter Plant and in the 344th Center for Combat Training and Retraining of the Russian Army Aviation in Torzhok. Where they are used in various kinds of experiments, for testing weapons systems and avionics, as well as for educational purposes. "

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".

Having said that, I would prefer if they just added support for some Igla variant to be carried on the current Ka-50's outer pylons rather than building some Frankenstein variant of the Ka-50 with new wings and MAWS, but the same old cockpit.

That is my personal opinion as well, because the information there is about the cockpit for the systems ED has planned to implement is rare. We all should be agree that KA-50 is in the photos with various weapons, that for long time many claimed to be impossible without photographs and later when photographs became available they have moved the claims from promptly denying such existence to demanding technical drawings etc evidence that how they are implemented before they can admit that they need to accept that we all don't know.

Like we can see from the photographs how KA-50 is equipped with the President-S. That is evidence that deniers should counter with evidence that shows how it is impossible. Be it a technical documents or written document from higher level that orders ground crews to install fake President-S for marketing/business reasons etc without any technical capabilities.

But before a such counter evidence is provided, it is 100% valid that KA-50 is capable carry functional President-S. Regardless that we do not have any kind information that how it is technically done. That is not task for us to do.

But it creates a situation to us to trust module developers to model the system best in their knowledge and abilities. And if we do not have that trust to them.... Here we are.

And if there are such personnel and information in the Russian language forum, then these people who says that it is not plausible should deliver the evidence from there to here that reveals how it is not possible. And that means evidence since 2001 when our KA-50 was upgraded up to latest and last upgraded KA-50 before or at 2008.

ED is in tough situation, because since the release of KA-50 it has been demanded to be removed by some extremist as it was "just a prototype" and "unrealistic" etc etc.

And year after year there has been more information revealed from it, as after all it is very modern military equipment. Maybe in 50 years from now on we get to know more about its final years, maybe not.

So until then we just need to either personally accept what ED does, or not.

Nevertheless it is our own personal dilemma.

I have not made my mind about it do I purchase it or not. Because personally I have that question about cockpit layout and systems for known systems.

Google Translate

And that is old information, unless it is based to last 2005 serial production standard?..

On the last three Ka-50s, which were produced in the second half of the 2000s, opportunities were added for the future installation of the L-370 Vitebsk self-protection system. At the same time, development of the Vitebsk was not yet completed, it was still tested and finalized. He entered service in 2013, when the Ka-50 program was already closed. No further upgrades of the Ka-50 to the supposedly "2005 serial production standard" were carried out.

If you have some diagrams and technical manuals describing the system in detail, then perhaps you could explain why such a thing would not be possible?

 

Otherwise, I'd presume the K-041 is not an immutable black box, but a name for a system of multiple components and sub-components which control different functions (navigation, targeting, weapons, etc.).

 

To insist that the engineers responsible for so many modifications required to test various systems on the numerous Ka-50 prototypes would have problems modifying, upgrading, replacing or simply bypassing some of these components (like e.g. the computer controlling the weapon control system) for something relatively trivial as adding support for two more pylons for A2A missiles seems pretty stubborn…

PrPNK is a system that includes several subsystems, computing and control devices, controls, etc. Specifically, the K-041 PrPNK is an analog-to-digital system of the late 1970s and early 1980s, in which data is exchanged between the analog interface and digital computers through a specific set of converters that are part of special I/O devices.

The K-041 PrPNK structure is based on 4 on-board computers of the 2nd generation of the 20-751 Orbit-20 series (combat and navigation, which can duplicate each other if one of them fails, plus computers of the information display system and external targeting system), as well as 1 on-board computer of the 3rd generation of the 80-30201 series, which controls the weapon system.

The Soviet on-board computing systems of the 2nd and 3rd generations, produced using technologies that lagged significantly behind the foreign ones of that period, were federated computing systems with a closed architecture, and therefore with very low modernization potential [for reference: in Russian].

In order to add additional control channels (for controlling weapons on additional pylons) to Soviet analog-to-digital systems of the late 1970s and early 1980s, it was necessary to completely redesign the weapon system, including replacing the on-board computer (for example, the 80-30201 at the 80-30XXX), as well as its I/O device. After that, it was necessary to make appropriate changes to the aircraft manufacturing technology, and introduce it into production, including related enterprises, and all this entailed quite substantial costs. All this is far from a trivial task.

The K-806 PrPNK installed on the Ka-52 is a digital system developed on the basis of studying modern foreign technologies. It is based on on-board computers of the 5th generation with an open architecture, as well as on an interface similar to the MIL-STD-1553B standard. In this system, there are no longer any constructive restrictions on weapons control channels, as was the case in older systems of the 2nd and 3rd generations. Therefore, to compare different aircraft, without taking into account the capabilities of the PrPNK installed on them, is the height of amateurism.

<…>

https://www.army-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/09/ka50_5.jpg

 

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!..

You can hang on a helicopter for advertising purposes anything you want… however, this does not mean that the machine has the ability to fire from it. If you had cited at least one photo of the Ka-50 cockpit containing launch control elements for the Igla missiles (it should not be confused with the launch controls of the R-73 missiles), then this would have been a different matter. Demanding proof of something that does not exist in reality is nothing more than ordinary methods of demagogy.

(.........................................................................................................)

I don't want to be rude, but it's pages and pages of discussion of how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

I don't understand why you feel the need to say this is 'real' when E.D. themselves have labelled it a work of imagination.

If you're happy with a fantasy that isn't too far from reality - OK, that's great - but a little fantasy is still a fantasy.

Maybe with a fantasy not too far from reality you can suspend disbelief & fool yourself that it's real for a while, but it's still a trick you play on yourself.

Maybe no worse than the fantasy we all engage in when we play the SIM, but a fantasy none the less.

There's no point in arguing with E.D. not to go down that path - they've said they're doing it and committed the resources, but some of us are disappointed. Guesstimating things you know exist but have trouble getting information is par for the course in simulation. Making stuff up that you know never existed is another thing.

Oh well - we move on...

What you're not going to do is persuade people that care about the distinction, that fantasy is fact.

I'm happy for you to suspend your own disbelief in the interests of your enjoyment, but stop trying to get us to suspend ours...

I don't want to be rude, but it's pages and pages of discussion of how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

 

I don't understand why you feel the need to say this is 'real' when E.D. themselves have labelled it a work of imagination.

 

If you're happy with a fantasy that isn't too far from reality - OK, that's great - but a little fantasy is still a fantasy.

 

Maybe with a fantasy not too far from reality you can suspend disbelief & fool yourself that it's real for a while, but it's still a trick you play on yourself.

 

Maybe no worse than the fantasy we all engage in when we play the SIM, but a fantasy none the less.

 

There's no point in arguing with E.D. not to go down that path - they've said they're doing it and committed the resources, but some of us are disappointed. Guesstimating things you know exist but have trouble getting information is par for the course in simulation. Making stuff up that you know never existed is another thing.

 

Oh well - we move on...

 

What you're not going to do is persuade people that care about the distinction, that fantasy is fact.

I'm happy for you to suspend your own disbelief in the interests of your enjoyment, but stop trying to get us to suspend ours...

Good heavens - a reasonable response! This is the Internet you know - is such a thing allowed?

You're absolutely right, of course. Each to their own, and there's plenty of room in this community for differing viewpoints...

I don't want to be rude, but it's pages and pages of discussion of how many angels will fit on the head of a pin.

 

I don't understand why you feel the need to say this is 'real' when E.D. themselves have labelled it a work of imagination.

 

If you're happy with a fantasy that isn't too far from reality - OK, that's great - but a little fantasy is still a fantasy.

 

Maybe with a fantasy not too far from reality you can suspend disbelief & fool yourself that it's real for a while, but it's still a trick you play on yourself.

 

Maybe no worse than the fantasy we all engage in when we play the SIM, but a fantasy none the less.

 

There's no point in arguing with E.D. not to go down that path - they've said they're doing it and committed the resources, but some of us are disappointed. Guesstimating things you know exist but have trouble getting information is par for the course in simulation. Making stuff up that you know never existed is another thing.

 

Oh well - we move on...

 

What you're not going to do is persuade people that care about the distinction, that fantasy is fact.

I'm happy for you to suspend your own disbelief in the interests of your enjoyment, but stop trying to get us to suspend ours...

I was about to answer, but you put it so nice.

@Fri13: As to evidence, I was wondering whether I should pull out documents proving everything that has been stated by me, but I though that no, I don´t have time for that. I also had a simpler idea, link you 2 comments where @Chizh and @Wags both state that this is a imagined ED Ka50 version. That would basically answer you everything in the shortest way. As to forming a coherent answer to your "belief" of what is "real" or not, @Weta43 pretty much conveyed the sentiment of it. We are different, I hope you enjoy your new Ka50.

Having said that, I would prefer if they just added support for some Igla variant to be carried on the current Ka-50's outer pylons rather than building some Frankenstein variant of the Ka-50 with new wings and MAWS, but the same old cockpit.

Which is what most people want to see I think. But for we people that like to actually fly this copter in combat, we need a model that can actually SURVIVE the battlefield. To quote one guy, " I like the Ka-50... but it's everyone's BITCH". And it is. The current Ka-50 has zero chance on a modern battlefield. One jet ( or even an Apache ) appears, and it's dead. So, I know if Russia made the Ka-52, they made a fleet of modern Ka-50's to protect it and be it's claws.

As for evidence, past about 2000, you people don't really have evidence of anything. The Ka-50 seemed to be pulled into the shadows. What happened to it after that, we don't know. We only see the beginnings of it getting a glass cockpit upgrade, and thus probably new weapon systems / defenses and modernization. The Russkies may turned it into Air Wolf for all we know. Though I prefer Red Wolf myself.

Which is what most people want to see I think. But for we people that like to actually fly this copter in combat, we need a model that can actually SURVIVE the battlefield. To quote one guy, " I like the Ka-50... but it's everyone's BITCH". And it is. The current Ka-50 has zero chance on a modern battlefield. One jet ( or even an Apache ) appears, and it's dead. So, I know if Russia made the Ka-52, they made a fleet of modern Ka-50's to protect it and be it's claws.

Sorry, but you're out of your mind if you're expecting a helicopter to be anything but a target when operating on its own. Helos don't operate in areas where RedAir is a significant factor and if they did, the results would be about what you'd expect.

A helos only chance is if a jet tries to engage it at point blank range with guns or short range heaters, which only happens if it's a training scenario where they deliberately hobble the jet with RoEs to give the helo a chance. In the permissive fire environment of DCS, a helo is toast, because he'll eat a Fox One/Three from 20 miles away and that's that.

Heated conversation going on here and i wish to add more fuel to it.

When the new Ka50 BS3 comes out, ill hop on a server and ill shoot down other BS2 'only' pilots and then i can already imagine the BS2 'only' pilots complaining hahaha.

Heated conversation going on here and i wish to add more fuel to it.

When the new Ka50 BS3 comes out, ill hop on a server and ill shoot down other BS2 'only' pilots and then i can already imagine the BS2 'only' pilots complaining hahaha.

You totally understood this community. Because everyone here is complaining when they die, or when life is unfair and the module they fly is at a disadvantage to others... You just showed intellect in that post of yours... For a record, say hi to my grandma from me, if you meet her in heaven, because you won´t even see the Vikhr coming at you from 10km. That was that. First sees, first wins, but guess you already knew that, judging from your post!

Keep that kind of thinking for warthunder babe, it´s wrong community to be making such statements. There are people like me, who take to the skies here with nothing but a MiG21Bis in a modern scenario, and you can guess how much it crushes your little ego when you in your F15 get shot down by a R-60M or even my personal favourite, R-55 (1,5-2km range, IR). Tells you that it´s not the plane, but the guy in it... Nuff´ said

@zhukov032186 Absolutely! And even though "glitches" happen IRL, where a fighter pilot might get too eager (make a mistake) and come close to receive an IR up his nozzle, it still would be 1 out of 100, if not less. In a tactical and practical sense, no one would send helicopters to fight planes. IR´s on helicopters are there to mostly combat other helicopters, because the best way to take out an enemy helicopter, is with another helicopter.

Lol, Only idiots don't arm their heli's with A-A in this modern era.

Heli's without A-A = suicide. Jets are always around somewhere in the skies. And it's extremely hard to hide from their radar because of your super sonic rotors tips.

But even advanced helicopters such as the Apache are hard to deal with, as they have the advantage of a co-pilot and more advanced weapons, like millimeter wave Hellfires.

Trying to fly and lock on to an Apache or Jet with a vhiker at the same time is near impossible. Hard enough to do it with ground targets while manuevering.

IR A-A gives you an advantage in that you can more easily get a lock and then Fire and Forget, literally snapping off a shot as you turn to run. Hopefully this give enough distraction to the enemy for you to get to good cover and make your next move, out of his sights.

I would never fly a helicopter in real combat without A-A. The Vhikers are pretty much useless in the A-A role. Might be somewhat nice if you had a co-pilot to do the lock and try and keep it.

Though I doubt I will buy BS3 unless it also gets MUCH NEEDED FLIR. Ka-50N.

Google Translate

Heated conversation going on here and i wish to add more fuel to it.

When the new Ka50 BS3 comes out, ill hop on a server and ill shoot down other BS2 'only' pilots and then i can already imagine the BS2 'only' pilots complaining hahaha.

For your case, one Russian-language idiom is very suitable, which, in a decent presentation, sounds approximately as follows (Russian-speaking will understand). :)

На каждую хитрую гайку найдётся свой болт с левой резьбой.

Heated conversation going on here and i wish to add more fuel to it.

When the new Ka50 BS3 comes out, ill hop on a server and ill shoot down other BS2 'only' pilots and then i can already imagine the BS2 'only' pilots complaining hahaha.

:D

Lol, Only idiots don't arm their heli's with A-A in this modern era.

 

 

Heli's without A-A = suicide. Jets are always around somewhere in the skies. And it's extremely hard to hide from their radar because of your super sonic rotors tips.

 

 

But even advanced helicopters such as the Apache are hard to deal with, as they have the advantage of a co-pilot and more advanced weapons, like millimeter wave Hellfires.

 

 

Trying to fly and lock on to an Apache or Jet with a vhiker at the same time is near impossible. Hard enough to do it with ground targets while manuevering.

 

 

IR A-A gives you an advantage in that you can more easily get a lock and then Fire and Forget, literally snapping off a shot as you turn to run. Hopefully this give enough distraction to the enemy for you to get to good cover and make your next move, out of his sights.

 

 

 

I would never fly a helicopter in real combat without A-A. The Vhikers are pretty much useless in the A-A role. Might be somewhat nice if you had a co-pilot to do the lock and try and keep it.

 

 

Though I doubt I will buy BS3 unless it also gets MUCH NEEDED FLIR. Ka-50N.

Talk for yourself, if you struggle with Vikhr, that´s your problem. Don´t overwrite your struggles and incompetence on others. No, helicopter´s without IR-missiles are not suicide, it´s simply a matter of tactics and scenario. Pretty much any AT missile can be used for A-A purposes. Also, IR rockets are shorter range, and as I stated before, who sees first usually wins. If you got yourself in a position where you have to dogfight with a helicopter, and that happened unexpected (you didn´t want to go close purposefully), then you are the "idiot". And if you ended up in a helicopter dogfight because you planned for it, then you are an even bigger "idiot", as you have missiles that can be easily guided (with training) allowing you to shoot down the enemy aircraft from further away, often without alerting them of your presence. That without running into something on the ground that you didn´t notice while closing in on him, or leaving good cover and running into the open where a hostile aircraft could pick you up. In general, putting yourself at even with your opponent is shitty tactics. If anything, IR rockets should be used as a situational weapon, not something you fly to employ actively.

A pilot doesn´t chose his own payload, it´s chosen during mission planning, and what´s available and when. You need to get out of your bubble and understand how it works IRL. These weapons cost much money, and it´s much paperwork involved in deciding what weapon to go out with. It´s that simple. Also, you seem to think that in the real world everyone flies in their own entity, in a disconnected flight. IRL, you would always have air coverage in such territories, and that would be a minimum. Mostly, the air would be clear by the time a helicopter moved in. If you judge the efficiency of an aircraft based on your lonely escapades in the multiplayer, then you might as well quit right now. Knowing how to fly and shoot is one thing, adding tactics to that is something else. And ultimately cooperating, sharing info and receiving, and making tactical decisions based on intel is yet another thing. Most people here fly in the hopes of killing as much as possible within one mission, although that is the target, it doesn´t happen at the rate it does here, because IRL you got one life and an expensive airframe to lose. So no, multiplayer is nothing to go by, unless it´s a clan flight where everything from briefing to debriefing is done properly!

It´s good that you would never fly a combat helicopter IRL, because you never will. As to IRL, you have superiors to answer to, and everything has to be cleared, everything from aircraft type, through mission, through flight plan, through RoE, loadout, etc... No one would ask you what you would want to do or not. Neither Apache´s, nor Cobras have IR-missiles, regardless of what the internet says. Mi24 had R-60 and R-60M, but seldomly flew with them. It´s only recently that Mi28 and Ka52 have started to fly with them by default. But if anything, it´s much more for drones than anything, as they are small and rather difficult to hit, and typically fly in a environments that are at the frontline and thus easy to pick out for helicopters.

Lol, Only idiots don't arm their heli's with A-A in this modern era.

 

 

Heli's without A-A = suicide. Jets are always around somewhere in the skies. And it's extremely hard to hide from their radar because of your super sonic rotors tips.

 

 

But even advanced helicopters such as the Apache are hard to deal with, as they have the advantage of a co-pilot and more advanced weapons, like millimeter wave Hellfires.

 

 

Trying to fly and lock on to an Apache or Jet with a vhiker at the same time is near impossible. Hard enough to do it with ground targets while manuevering.

 

 

IR A-A gives you an advantage in that you can more easily get a lock and then Fire and Forget, literally snapping off a shot as you turn to run. Hopefully this give enough distraction to the enemy for you to get to good cover and make your next move, out of his sights.

 

 

 

I would never fly a helicopter in real combat without A-A. The Vhikers are pretty much useless in the A-A role. Might be somewhat nice if you had a co-pilot to do the lock and try and keep it.

 

 

Though I doubt I will buy BS3 unless it also gets MUCH NEEDED FLIR. Ka-50N.

Lol. You dont want to know how much times I have shot down Gazelle Mistral with Vikhers. 7-8 killometers is 7-8 killometers.

Locking a jet using shkval is not impossible, it really depends on how fast the jet is flying. I once locked a friendly f-16, he was flying low and slow. I almost fired but changed my mind because I saw him on the F10 map. I wanted to make sure he was friendly before I shoot. But I agree, It's very hard to lock a fast flying jet.

Though I doubt I will buy BS3 unless it also gets MUCH NEEDED FLIR. Ka-50N.

I won't buy it either unless it has:

FLIR and RWR. I don't care about more weapons or new cockpit textures.

Locking a jet using shkval is not impossible, it really depends on how fast the jet is flying. I once locked a friendly f-16, he was flying low and slow. I almost fired but changed my mind because I saw him on the F10 map. I wanted to make sure he was friendly before I shoot. But I agree, It's very hard to lock a fast flying jet.

How fast it is, what aspects it´s coming at, how big it is, and so on. Fully doable, but even if you don´t get a lock, you still guide the missile manually. With proximity fuse, you get vikhr in the vicinity of it, and down it goes. Vikhr is a strong missile, does high damage. But you don´t meet planes very often on such low altitudes, people mostly fly their aircraft relative to the weapons they have. Most use guided weapons, so they don´t go low or close too often. Typically the aspect becomes the issue, they come at a 90 deg angle to you or are too high. It´s still doable, but then Vikhr loses it´s range on manoeuvring. However, don´t focus too much on shooting down planes, rather, you shouldn´t be there if there are many of them. Or atleast hide. If you know where they land, go to their airfield, from 8-9km, you take them down when they land or are just about to. That´s how you teach them respect.

What however is doomed, are helicopters. Out to 10km, if I see you (and I spy, I see more than your radar), you are down. And if you are not within my range, I will make sure you get. Helicopters are slow, easy to guide the Vikhr on, either manually or if you get a valid lock on. Be it a Kiowa, Gazelle, Apache, Cobra, you name it. With Vikhr´s Mach 1.8 (+ helicopter´s speed), a single one will annihilate you. They do their job, I guarantee ;)

There will be no Ka50N or Ka50Sh (Rus forum), learn to use what you got. You people are basically complaining about anything that is not there. Ka50 lacks FLIR, A10C is too slow, F16 doesn´t pull enough AoA, F18C is rather slow on acceleration, a potential Ah-64A/D would have too little engine power (couldn´t take as many weapons as any of the Russian choppers we got, esp. high altitude, high temperature), a Cobra would be too weakly armored to arms fire, and so on... Learn your aircraft and know your aircraft. Every machine has it´s limitations, you have to learn what they are and find ways to overcome them. It´s that simple. There is no single ultimate airplane or helicopter. Ever noticed how many helicopters there are in the military? or planes? It´s not because, just add FLIR, this and that and it will be perfect. You start adding stuff, and the performance lacks. It´s mostly a matter of doctrine though. That´s why we don´t have transformers that to everything at once.

Blah, blah, blah.

It doesn't matter. If you don't want it, don't buy it. The rest of us will, if we get the modern upgrades we are looking for.

LOL, personally, I think you jet jockeys are just scared to death of a heli that might not be a sitting duck. Come low if you dare!

Blah, blah, blah.

LOL, personally, I think you jet jockeys are just scared to death of a heli that might not be a sitting duck. Come low if you dare!

You’re missing the point. AI jet will take you down no matter what and you will have zero chance of survival. So your comment about come low if you dare is a hogwash.

Oh, I would say helis gets a little more advantage when the jets come down really low over the tree tops. Now, I can use the hills to hide behind. They can't go as fast nor maneuver as well. So yeah, come low!

Just remember that scene in Blue Thunder when the F16's came below the tops of the skyscrapers. The copter was now able to put buildings between it and the jets, and of course, the copter could maneuver between them FAR better than any jet. Give me Igla's and FLIR, like any MODERN heli would have, and it's going to be a very different fight than usual.

Now I can pop off a fast shot, and run for cover. Now I can lock targets in the dark.

Very good , im waiting black shark 4 now

Google Translate

Locking a jet using shkval is not impossible, it really depends on how fast the jet is flying. I once locked a friendly f-16, he was flying low and slow. I almost fired but changed my mind because I saw him on the F10 map. I wanted to make sure he was friendly before I shoot. But I agree, It's very hard to lock a fast flying jet.

In reality, the problem is not the speed of the target, but its angular velocity. If you use the Shkval to locking the target when if its aspect angle 'towards' or 'pursuit', then there are practically no problems (except for the necessary speed of your actions). Real developers do not guarantee the correct operation of the Shkval at an angular velocity of its direction-of-look of more than 8°/s in target auto-tracking. In addition, for the Shkval to work correctly, there are restrictions for the flight of the carrier itself (no more than 15°/s in course, 20°/s in pitch, 60°/s in roll, ±20° of slip, etc.). Therefore, it is not entirely wise to wish that the Soviet TV sighting systems of the early 1980s in the game worked as efficiently as they did on a modern fighter. :)

IRL, when locking a target with the Igla IR-head, you may have problems with the angular velocity of the 'missile-target' direction-of-look exceeding 12°/s. In this case, you will have to switch to the manual launch mode, in which the locking time can take from 0.6 sec. to 30 sec. When firing from the Strelets SEM, after you have found the target, the minimum time from the battery and coolant unit (BCU) activation till launch is 6.6 sec. Maximum time allowed for aiming to 60 sec. If you didn't have time to locking the target, then you will either have to write off one the Igla or one the BCU (the next time, if you are lucky, you will only have 30 sec. to locking the target for this missile… and in the manual launch mode this time may simply not be enough).

Unfortunately, in the DCS: CA module, firing a player from the MANPADS is so greatly simplified that it gives them simply fantastic capabilities compared to real ones. If the real limitations and operations that exist during the targeting and launching of the Iglas are likewise greatly simplified in the future DCS: BS3 module, this will be another big minus to the work of the ED.

… LOL, personally, I think you jet jockeys are just scared to death of a heli that might not be a sitting duck. Come low if you dare!

For some reason, it seems to me that you amuse yourself with vain expectations. If you can't do anything now in order to go unnoticed by enemy fighters in multiplayer, then the Iglas and even the President-S will hardly help you in the future. :)

If your goal in multiplayer is to shoot down as many enemies as possible with a helicopter, then why not just buy a DCS: SA342 Gazelle module right now, and then use the Mistral missiles to satisfy your thirst for revenge? If your task in multiplayer is to destroy the maximum possible amount of enemy ground equipment on an attack helicopter, then you simply physically will have neither time nor opportunities to simultaneously hunt for air targets, posing as a fighter and interceptor aircraft. :)

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.

Google Translate

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

If you want to have the Ka-50 module in future versions after DCS World 2.5, then in any case you will buy the DCS: BS3, because after its release, support for the DCS: BS2 will be discontinued. :)

… Мы выпустим бесплатное обновление кабины ЧА2, которое будет устранять проблемы с видимостью светоиндикаторов. На этом поддержка ЧА2 будет завершена.

ЧА2 не перестанет работать, по крайней мере в версии DCS 2.5. Она будет работать параллельно с ЧА3.

… 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…

On this occasion, Weta43 said very well.

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

 

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

 

That's all the OP was after.

 

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

… To re-iterate

 

FLIR

<…>

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

<…>

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

What is the point of repeating this? ED developers have clearly said that these systems will not be in the DCS: BS3.

FLIR у Ка-50 не будет.

No way.

No plans for RWR so far. (Info from current topic)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3945825&postcount=102

Beryoza (Береза) / SPO (СПО) - Soviet RWR.

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

The Apache helicopters are not available in online of the DCS World. If the Apaches shot down you in offline, then this event is part of the script and was conceived by the author of the mission. :)

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

I would like God to hear you. :)

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

ED developers have repeatedly stated that the Shkval in the game is modeled close to real. Above, I have given you only part of the existing restrictions for the real Shkval, so I believe that here the game developers are not too far from the truth.