Igla implementation IRL

I don't think ED will get another look in any book of Russian weapons, no matter what kind.

 

Read some news and you can easily see why.

 

Those days, mid 90's to early 2000, when Russia opened their doors, ARE GONE.

 

 

The cold war is back, in many ways.

And what has this to do with EDs sudden change of mind to implement the Igla now? For the past 10+ years of "DCS Black Shark" ED has not seen any evidence of Iglas having been integrated in the Ka-50 IRL and hence rejected to implement Iglas in their DCS Ka-50. Now after 10+ years they suddenly decided to do it, even though they still have no evidence at all that this was a thing IRL. I find that very elusive.

 

@Fri13

Sorry, but you're doing a lot of speculation there, which is the exact opposite of what I wanted to achieve with this thread. I wanted to get some actual real life info on Igla implementation into the Ka-50 (which apparently doesn't exist) and not another round of speculations.

I know one KA-50 pilot who said that IGLAS were tested and put to progress for new KA-50 versions. Problem is that not all pilots know all things and not all things finally get implemented because politics changes things.

No one here, not even ED know everything. That is the problem that lots of things goes completely by the guesswork when you do not have the full puzzle visible.

The military secrets are like you are given a thousand and more different informations, and you need to complete the picture out of it all that will reveal you enough.

Like look example the MiG-25, that even west most dedicated and knowledged intelligence officers couldn't get to know what it really was, the USA started to design F-15 based just the guesses how to counter that modern future amazing MiG-25 superfighter, and what they did find out when the MiG-25 was finally got hands on after defector brought it to hands of western intelligence people? It was nothing like it was said it was.

The same thing was with Vikhr missiles, where again similar high level intelligence officers believed that it has a laser seeker in its nose etc etc. Only to find out much later with the real thing that it is a Beam Rider.

Even when you are in business of working with these military secrets, you don't know anything all about them unless you are in the big shoe in the business who is actually responsible for everything. And that means you must be a chief designer for the whole vehicle so you know what it is all about. Not even the generals know what they are getting when they are discussing with the weapon delivery, it is again responsibilities about the unknown people who does all the testing, finally the people who does the planning.

There are lots of all kind test pilots, who most don't know what others know. It is just normal business where you have dozens of different systems that never get implemented, lots of ideas, lots of tests etc that others don't ever know, and you never know what others do, even if you are chief test pilot.

This is easy to find out when in time you talk with various test pilots and you just learn that they don't know what others know, one says one thing, other say nothing and third has head rumors but denies them. The byrokratia is huge information wall, and when you design the system completely around such things in purpose, you make things even more difficult. Like you can get to know some things from public sources that not even the engineers working with the systems never worked with and they are surprised that something else had been worked.

And this is not just about what military does, this is basic thing in the modern business as well, where example IBM has been well known for it in the past, and maybe even more well known is Apple today, where people are transferred from projects to project, where engineers don't know what they are actually working with and even with who.

Besides that you're throwing a lot of other topics into the mix that have nothing to do with the Igla implementation for the Ka-50.

I only tell you the pattern of the problem, the "no proof" is not a proof no matter what people here are claiming. Because you don't have talked with a KA-50 pilot that doesn't confirm you something, doesn't mean something was not done for it. Because you don' t have a photograph of something, doesn't mean it has never existed. Because you do not have public video about test firing etc, doesn't mean it never happened.

The world is not black and white, that is the problem among mathematicians, physicists and historians.

The logic is the only the main evidence there is, under it is everything else. And testimonies from the people is the lowest value of all and needs to be taken with big grain of salt, and if it is against everything else above, it is not valuable.

Google Translate

… Now after 10+ years they suddenly decided to do it, even though they still have no evidence at all that this was a thing IRL. I find that very elusive.

Probably the commercial success of the DCS: SA342 Mistral module had destructive properties even for the most 'indestructible' principles. :D

I'm OK with this, but I want the same consideration for the UH-1 (I have both modules, but the UH-1 is the only one I fly). Given the recent reduction in power of the 7.62 rounds to closer match reality, I feel the UH-1 needs additional historical armaments added to the DCS version.

My (completely reasonable) UH-1 wishlist in order of what I want first:

XM30

An experimental system, the XM30 provided fully flexible mounts using the XM156/M156 universal mounts for two XM140 30mm cannon, with 600 rounds of ammunition per gun.

XM31

Another attempt to up the firepower from existing systems, the XM31 provided two M24A1 20mm cannon in pods fitted to XM156/M156 universal mounts each with 600 rounds of ammunition, and flexible in elevation only.

XM59/M59

A variation on the M23, the XM59/M59 was modified to accept either an XM213/M213 .50 caliber machine gun or an XM175 40mm grenade launcher in addition to being able to mount the M60.

M22 Armament Subsystem technical schematic

XM11, XM22/M22, and the Maxwell System

Both of these armament systems were designed to allow the UH-1 to fire the AGM-22 missile. Sources claim that the XM11 provided an XM70 sight and support racks for 6 missiles, three on each side of the aircraft. However, US Army FM 1-40 says that the XM11 designation was unassigned.

XM5/M5

The XM5/M5 system consists of a nose turret for a single M75 40mm grenade launcher. The mount was fully flexible and controlled by the pilot via a hand controlled sight electronically linked to the turret. The system either provided 150 or 302 rounds of ammunition.

XM9

A variant of the XM6/M6 system, the XM9 substitutes the four M60C 7.62×51mm machine guns with two M75 grenade launchers, one on either side of the aircraft.

The M22 was an improvement providing a more specific sight, the XM58, and using the XM156 universal mount. The M22 also provided for a total of 6 missiles, three on each side of the aircraft. It is important to note as well that the XM11 is associated with the standard SS.11 missiles (AGM-22A), while the XM22/M22 system was designed around the US upgraded AGM-22B missiles.

XM26

With the development of the BGM-71 TOW missile Hughes had been given the contract to develop a launching system for the UH-1. By 1968 development had shifted over to development of a system for the AH-56 helicopter which was eventually canceled. The XM26 provided two 3-Tube launchers on either side of the aircraft, as well as the necessary sighting equipment. While the XM26 was more of a test platform, the two prototypes were deployed operationally as an emergency measure in South Vietnam to counter the Easter Invasion in 1972.

M56

A mine dispenser system for the UH-1H helicopter, the M56 is composed of two SUU-13D/A dispensers on the M156 Universal Mount, which is reinforced to handle the additional weight.

XM94

A variant of the XM93, the XM94 substitutes the M129 40mm grenade launcher for one or both of the door mounted M134 7.62×51mm Miniguns.

A/A49E-11

Referred to as the Defensive Armament System or DAS, this system is composed of two mounts for GAU-15/A and GAU-16/A .50 caliber machine guns or GAU-17/A 7.62×51mm Miniguns, as well as, two BRU-20/A or BRU-21/A bomb racks for current 2.75" rocket launchers. This system was also designed primarily for use with the UH-1N helicopter (and is in use with the US Marine Corps as well in this capacity), but is likely suitable for other long-fuselage UH-1 types.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._helicopter_armament_subsystems#UH-1_Iroquois

:thumbup:

@Fri13

Dude, you're going way over the top here. I don't even understand what you're actually trying to say. That ED should implement weapons and functions just based on speculations?

Well then I wholeheartedly disagree, because I would prefer if ED only implements stuff which has been proven to actually exist.

@Zaphod

Sounds reasonable :D

@Fri13

Dude, you're going way over the top here. I don't even understand what you're actually trying to say. That ED should implement weapons and functions just based on speculations?

Well then I wholeheartedly disagree, because I would prefer if ED only implements stuff which has been proven to actually exist.

 

 

[ATTACH]224606[/ATTACH]

 

So you can now ask from yourself.

 

By the known testimonies it is said that KA-50 was stated to need an Air-to-Air weapon and that it was to be tested. And that was chosen to be the IGLA and R-73.

What is known by material evidence is that R-73 has been tested on KA-50-2 at least, it has been hanged on it and been flying with them, as well been offered for sale with them (now the logical question is, why would you hang them if not for testing, and why would you offer them for sale if you can't launch them?). The more modern KA-50 versions than KA-50-2 has been upgraded by various means. And while KA-50 and KA-52 has been in upgrade progress simultaneously, where eventually KA-52 received the IGLA's, while the older KA-52 variants had the R-73 even. There is no photographs of the KA-50 with IGLA's but logic says that if the original plan (that was stated in the documents) was that the air group consist from KA-50's as wingmen and lead is one KA-52 (it was not so that KA-52 replaces KA-50), then why would you make a helicopter such way that wouldn't share major parts so in war conditions you can sacrifice some units to keep working groups?

 

KA-52 received a new wings, based to KA-50-2, but not the first KA-52's had the new wings but only the newer ones. The original KA-52's had same wings as did the KA-50. Logic says that for the final production run, KA-50 would receive the same wings as KA-52 so that in war time or in business when you are transporting the helicopter groups across the world, you get to build, maintain and support only one pair of wings, instead two. Same thing is with the tail, it is with the rotor blades, it is with the wheels, it is with the cannon, it is with missiles, rockets everything to be as much as possible be shared so you can do it easily on the field.

 

Militaries does this a lot. Be it a Mk.82 or FAB-250 bombs and then their various rockets etc. You get the same rockets, same bombs, same missiles etc across different aircrafts as much as possible. The USA even went so far that they started to call everything with "Joint" to get it sold and accepted for the congress to even considering to buy it. If it didn't have "Joint" in its name, it was rejected. Why you ended up J designation in everything.

 

When Mi-24 was being engineered, even the politics got angry that Mi-24 wasn't using all the existing technology there was. Periscope from the tanks, laser designators from the IFV, missiles from the IFV etc. The same thing has been on the USA side, do you guess why does F-16 and A-10 share the same stick? Why the F-15 share same throttle as F-18? Why the same HUD system is used across various aircrafts, why the same instruments, pedals, ejection seats etc are shared across the different companies?

 

Even when F-15 was air superiority fighter, it had a limited Air-to-Ground capability, but it was not put on the operational condition because some corrupted politician decided that it would be a threat to US Navy operated F-18 and F-14 operational designs and F-111 was required to be successful. Only that then later politics has turned by military demands that lead to F-15E that is for dedicated strike missions.

 

KA-50 helicopter has been in development even just 12 years ago! That has been extremely "little while ago" in military secrets, especially when KA-52 shares a lot of its systems and functions and capabilities! F-35 and F-22 has been far longer and you have very difficulty to get many informations from those things, even when F-35 is so widely "developed together".

 

If you would travel back in time, you would find out that in given time SR-71 never existed. MIG-25 was complete mystery, NSA never existed and CIA never has allowed to work domestically in USA. You only learn about those things when time goes further, and yet you never really know anything in details, until time has come right. Like today you can walk to the air museum and photograph a SR-71! You can get as civilian a flight in MiG-29! You can learn so much, yet so little about those historical weapons.

 

And when there is huge information puzzle made by purpose, you will find out lots of false information, lots of right information and lots of nothing. And you are completely in the dark by most parts that how things really works. Like the pilots handbooks are full of false information, NATOPS manuals are full of false information and inaccuracies even. And we are talking about weapons systems that were developed, designed and build at the Cold War era, where the spies were everywhere, even the common information from Soviet Union itself was very difficult to get.

 

People are way too custom these days to todays "standards", where they can just type search word to Google and then get information like what is the todays weather. And yet that doesn't apply for many many things. People just builds this common misconception that information is all available and it is all trustworthy etc.

 

Yet we live in the world where no one in to this day, has never been able to proof that God exist.... Yet there are billions who are believing to miracles and that you can pray and you get what you deserve etc...

And one of the problems is that many of these religious people don't even understand what "atheistic" means, as it is not about "believing there is no God", it is just that someone needs to first show that evidence until they believe. And all these NATOPS etc are like bibles for people. Like if you go to specific helicopter threads here, there are people telling how the module Flight Modeling is wrong because they can do some fancy acrobatics etc, that no one in the real world would ever perform because it is completely unknown scenario, likely leading only to the death of the pilot and aircraft destruction. So because it is unknown and untested thing, they claim that flight modeling is wrong. No, no one knows is it true or not, because there is no real world information. No Information != Not Evidence. No Information = No Information.

 

No Information = We do not know to accept or not to accept.

 

We do not know what weapons KA-50 really had practically in operational condition, what were really accepted and what were tested etc. There are already conflict among the pilots, ground crew, companies etc that what there is and what there ain't. And that is causing the problem that some people want to just pick a side "IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AS THERE IS NO PHOTO!". You can talk to so many people who don't really know things, even when they have worked with them for years etc. Our humans problems is as well that we do forget lots of things, we do not remember correctly what just happened or what even has been done for long period of times. Why you really can't trust to peoples statements, but you actually need a hard evidence. And because it doesn't exist, doesn't mean something has not been done. There needs to be hard evidence to show that it has never been so. Like a official documents that tests were done, results was unacceptable or not operational and not possible. Documents that denies the application for weapons testing like IGLA for KA-50. There needs to be real documents about denying things, telling and showing that it doesn't work etc.

 

Anyone can see that KA-50 old two pylon wing doesn't have a third pylon, that is hard evidence, but then again hanging something else there than Vikhr and Rockets etc is own problem.

 

 

Looks to be a standard KA-50 wing, mounted to KA-52 prototype.... With the R-73 and Kh-25 missiles.

 

Just a anti-espionage production? Just a drunk ground crew wanted to see how would it look like after drinking too much Vodka? Or something else?

Test pilots words etc is nothing really. The chief designer would be more trustworthy, but even he would need to back all with documents, designs, test results etc with documents, and all that should be backed up by the laws of physics etc and finally by the logic.

 

We already have photographs showing KA-52 with R-73 and Kh-25 etc. Yet people deny those because "They were too dangerous" and didn't exist.

People are denying things here because official ground crew weapons loadout doesn't accept something, because some politician decided so that it shouldn't be done, regardless that it was tested, accepted and made completely possible!

 

Like example, the MiG-21Bis we have is only for the Russia. Like when Finland purchased MiG-21Bis, they put western avionics in, they swapped the wheels for larger ones and made many other modifications for it, yet it was the MiG-21Bis. Yet that is in the DCS with its only ground foliage skin etc, while it shouldn't be there by minds of purists.

 

And again that is about just one test pilot words,

 

You can learn many things in interviews like these, but everything must be taken with grain of salt... Back up everything with official documents etc and you must get access to those, not just say "I have read those".

 

And that is what ED has been doing with Black Shark 3. They take everything that has been proven to exist, in operational use, implemented etc. But they just don't have knowledge that it has been done all in one unit. Because they don't have the knowledge, they can't confirm or deny it does or doesn't exist. They only know that they have not received information about it.

 

They don't have information about the latest variants, they don't know what the latest models are capable of! So what ED is doing, is that they take all the known things, and the improvise it with educated guesses. It is same thing as if someone would give you a puzzle with few pieces missing, but you have a good idea that what the final image should look like, so you know how to put it together.

 

 

 

"Genius is the ability to go from A to D without having to go through B and C." Must most needs to have B and C....

And what has this to do with EDs sudden change of mind to implement the Igla now? For the past 10+ years of "DCS Black Shark" ED has not seen any evidence of Iglas having been integrated in the Ka-50 IRL and hence rejected to implement Iglas in their DCS Ka-50. Now after 10+ years they suddenly decided to do it, even though they still have no evidence at all that this was a thing IRL. I find that very elusive.

It means what it says.

There will be no further assistance from the official russian site for ED to use for DCS.

That has been stated several times during the last few years.

So whatever they do, is based on best assumption or on info they already had or from best guessing. Take your pick.

Personally, I welcome the Iglas and MWS and other Goodies.

Due to the nature of this sim, imho 75% is top secret and based on guesswork.

It means what it says.

 

There will be no further assistance from the official russian site for ED to use for DCS.

That has been stated several times during the last few years.

 

So whatever they do, is based on best assumption or on info they already had or from best guessing. Take your pick.

 

Personally, I welcome the Iglas and MWS and other Goodies.

 

Due to the nature of this sim, imho 75% is top secret and based on guesswork.

You're saying that like they did have information about real life Igla integration in the past, but that's not the case, so what you're saying is irrelevant to this case:

Past 10 years: ED had no info on a real life Igla integration and hence did not implemented Iglas in DCS Ka-50.

Today: ED still has no info on a real life Igla integration but now decided to implement them in our DCS Ka-50.

And that is what ED has been doing with Black Shark 3. They take everything that has been proven to exist, in operational use, implemented etc.

I still haven't seen any confirmation/proof, that Igla was actually integrated into any Ka-50 at any time, which is still the sole reason why I started this thread, because I'm looking for this confirmation. So far with no success and it seems like ED has no such confirmation either, which makes the Igla a fantasy weapon on the Ka-50, because the speculation you're doing is just that: speculation.

I still haven't seen any confirmation/proof, that Igla was actually integrated into any Ka-50 at any time, which is still the sole reason why I started this thread, because I'm looking for this confirmation. So far with no success and it seems like ED has no such confirmation either, which makes the Igla a fantasy weapon on the Ka-50, because the speculation you're doing is just that: speculation.

It was apparently never integrated, but since that's not really news, is there a point in repeating the same post over and over again?

Igla-V was presumably never integrated on the Ka-50 because it would make no sense given that the helicopter has only been made in limited numbers and it was decided Mi-28N and Ka-52 would be made instead.

At the same time, several variants of Igla-V systems were developed for mounting on existing Soviet and later Russian helicopters and integrating it on the Ka-50 would require little effort. They even reserved a spot for it in the controls. So, it's hardly a fantasy add-on.

As to why ED is doing it, well, we won't get an Mi-28N or a Ka-52 in DCS for sure, plus they are trying to add some extra features to justify a new paid upgrade.

My bigger concern is that the new 3D model will have MAWS and I presume there won't be two different Ka-50 objects in the game after upgrading to BS3 so will we lose the option of using the older Ka-50 model (e.g. for some older scenarios)? Or perhaps we'll be able to use the BS2 variant (3D model and cockpit) in parallel to BS3?

Ideally, there would be two variants in game, but also the older variant's 3D model would also get updated (i.e. remove the new MAWS bits, not sure if the wings will change for the new variant).

All I'm hearing from that idiocy of its not realistic: Is that if the KA-50 carry Iglas it's as if the KA-50 carried SCUD Missiles... That's why they are calling it fantasy XD.

Google Translate

<…>

 

Looks to be a standard KA-50 wing, mounted to KA-52 prototype.... With the R-73 and Kh-25 missiles.

 

Just a anti-espionage production? Just a drunk ground crew wanted to see how would it look like after drinking too much Vodka? Or something else?..

The advertisement is engine of the trade. © :)

The Ka-52 No.061 first prototype, a photo from the first demonstration of the helicopter to Russian journalists on November 16, 1996. On the wing panels, for advertising purposes, weight models of the Kh-25 and R-73 missiles were suspended. This Ka-52 prototype made its maiden flight on June 25, 1997.

For the first time, the Ka-52 No.061 used weapons only in the fall of 2005 – it fired from a cannon. These were tests of the gas-dynamic stability of engines when firing a cannon in various flight modes, so the shooting was not aimed. In addition, it was technically impossible, because the piloting, navigation and targeting system for the Ka-52 at that time was still under development, so the sighting systems did not function.

The Ka-52 No.061 prototype until 2008 remained the only helicopter of this model. The second and third prototypes of the Ka-52 were built only in 2008 (No.062 and No.063, respectively).

QuiGon,

calm down and read my post again ::

So whatever they do, is based on best assumption or on info they already had or from best guessing. Take your pick.

I said, take your pick, I did not say THAT is what happened.

Of course I don't know it 100%. But if you let yourself through the following, it could be that the KA-50 A2A can carry missiles.

KA-50 Handbuch (German) Page 16: In addition to the guided anti-tank system and the cannon, the Soviet military wanted to use a larger number of weapon systems. The armament of the V-80 was therefore expanded to include rocket launchers, UPK-23-250 cannon containers, bombs, KMGU canisters and the option of upgrading to more modern air-to-surface and air-to-air missiles.

Which is supported by the following sentence from the article https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/ka-50.htm

It also carries guided air-to-air missiles IGLA-V (Needle C), already extensively tested and sold to buyers abroad.

However, here it is written:

https://books.google.de/books?id=qt47BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=ka-50+igla&source=bl&ots=7q7zktRh9b&sig=ACfU3U3HgFcpdqaIZbq7B3L6cDupiX7Aiw&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiNicmz-PTmAhXLUlAKHX4VB5UQ6AEwFXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=ka-50%20igla&f= false

that the KA-52 can carry Iglas. There is no mention of the KA-50 here.

On this website:

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-50.php

The Igla is listed under the ARMAMENT section at the bottom and even the R-73. But isn't KA-50 meant here, but perhaps the KA-50Sh and / or KA-50-2?

It's kind of an exciting topic. And ED manages (wanted or unwanted) that maybe more gamers deal with the Ka-50. I personally look forward to it. Among other things, I'm already full of HIND fever ...

I still haven't seen any confirmation/proof, that Igla was actually integrated into any Ka-50 at any time, which is still the sole reason why I started this thread, because I'm looking for this confirmation. So far with no success and it seems like ED has no such confirmation either, which makes the Igla a fantasy weapon on the Ka-50, because the speculation you're doing is just that: speculation.

You've seen no proof because it NEVER HAPPENED. E.D. have said that themselves. It is a 'fantasy' weapon added "because they wanted to"

There have been pages and pages of "Might have been", "should have been", "was meant to be" ... but in the end it never was.

Re your earlier post - It doesn't sit well with their stated hsitorical approach to me either, but I guess E.D. have to recoup the costs of developing the new model and cockpit for the Ka-50, and a BS-3 module will do much of this - if it's got enough new features to encourage people to buy it. As they did a pretty good job with the original there aren't that many useful real systems missing, so to get enough new features to make it atractive they have to dig into the 'might have been' bucket...

You've seen no proof because it NEVER HAPPENED. E.D. have said that themselves. It is a 'fantasy' weapon added "because they wanted to"

 

There have been pages and pages of "Might have been", "should have been", "was meant to be" ... but in the end it never was.

 

Re your earlier post - It doesn't sit well with their stated hsitorical approach to me either, but I guess E.D. have to recoup the costs of developing the new model and cockpit for the Ka-50, and a BS-3 module will do much of this - if it's got enough new features to encourage people to buy it. As they did a pretty good job with the original there aren't that many useful real systems missing, so to get enough new features to make it atractive they have to dig into the 'might have been' bucket...

I guess that's pretty much it then: Igla (and maybe also MAWS, which I haven't dared mentioning so far) apparently was never a thing on the Ka-50, but ED has given up on their "keep it real" stance in order to have more features to sell BS3 to its customers (personally I would have paid just for a graphics update without additional fantasy features).

Not really what I was hoping for when I started this thread, but things are as they are :(

Google Translate

… Igla-V was presumably never integrated on the Ka-50 because it would make no sense given that the helicopter has only been made in limited numbers and it was decided Mi-28N and Ka-52 would be made instead.

 

At the same time, several variants of Igla-V systems were developed for mounting on existing Soviet and later Russian helicopters and integrating it on the Ka-50 would require little effort. They even reserved a spot for it in the controls. So, it's hardly a fantasy add-on…

@Dudikoff

You wrote practically everything correctly, of course, if at one time the customer allocated money, then the Ka-50 could be upgraded by equipping it with air-to-air missiles. It would look something like the photo below under the spoiler (the Iglas hang instead of the Vikhrs).

However, for me personally, for example, it is already little surprise that the ED is adding the Igla missiles to the Ka-50 (by the way, judging by everything, this will be the Strelets). What confuses me more is that the ED will change the internal systems of the helicopter, in fact, doing technical forgery.

I already wrote that the Ka-50 and Ka-52 have different piloting, navigation and targeting systems (PrPNK): the K-041 Rubicon and K-806 Argument-52, respectively. The weapon systems (SUV), which are subsystems of their PrPNKs, on the Ka-50 and Ka-52 are also different, respectively.

The SUV of the Ka-50 is designed to control 4 weapon external hardpoits, while the SUV of the Ka-52 is designed to control 6 weapon external hardpoits. The original Ka-50 weapon system could not control 6 weapon external hardpoits.

Accordingly, combining the Ka-50 and Ka-52 (making a wing with 6 weapon external hardpoits in the DCS: Ka-50), while leaving the old K-041 Rubicon PrPNK in this module, the ED brings its own imagination to the game. The Kamov JSC probably would never do this. Most likely they would have installed a new K-806 Argument-52 PrPNK on the Ka-50, as they had already done in their time, having installed its prototype on the Ka-50Sh No.18.

UPD.

I guess that's pretty much it then: Igla (and maybe also MAWS, which I haven't dared mentioning so far) apparently was never a thing on the Ka-50…

@QuiGon

The MAWS (missile approach warning system) was installed on the only Ka-50 No.25 from the end of 2003 to the year 2009, with small interruptions, and during this period it was tested on it (as well as on the [noparse]Mi-8[/noparse]). However, at that time it was still a test system, which was then changed and modified several more times before it was put into service in 2013 (as I understand it, the ED is going to implement this latest version of the system in the DCS: Ka-50).

The ED knows little about the real characteristics of this system, and they know almost nothing about how this complex was integrated into the Ka-50 No.25 avionics, so, as they themselves admit, this will also be pretty much a fantasy from the ED. :rolleyes:

Fantasy. Test. Experimental. => Ka-50.

At this point, I don't care so much. Until we get something that was actually fielded in good numbers, this is what we have.

We need a helicopter that can fly and fight at night and carry at least igla's for air defense. Preferably on the Russian side, since all the new "modern" fighters are American, and see helicopters as defenseless turkeys.

& you don't care if it's an imaginary one ?

& you don't care if it's an imaginary one ?

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

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

Then surely you could both just fly a space sim with shields and a laser cannon ?

To me, the Ka-50 is very near imaginary. It was an experimental helicopter (...)

Although you have repeated this many times to justify your wish for fantasy elements, it’s simply not true...

(And “near-imaginary” is an imaginary concept. )

The DCS is more full of "fantasies" by other systems like TGP, laser designators, Mavericks seekers, AGM-88 HARM capability, Link-16 capabilities, the ground units stupidity, air radars performances etc etc...

 

The whole multiplayer genre is full of hotshots who do not understand that they do not have more than one life.... So they fly and operate aircrafts based that they have infinity lives and planes and weapons cost only bits....

 

Want to see more reality in DCS multiplayer? Insta death.... Plane license to cost 5€ and if you wreck that aircraft, you need to buy a new license.... If you kill your pilot, it is 10€ fee to get back to server....

 

Lets then see how "fantasy" flying does then these wannabie pilots do.... Those who call things "fantasy KA-50"...

 

Fantasies are those who fly those simulated aircrafts out of their purpose and out of fear of death.

Lol, that would be the end of Black Shark, as it's pretty much suicide to fly it on a DCS battlefield. It's just a turkey waiting for a fighter jet to shoot it down.

Yes. ED can you make one? *prettyplease*

 

*tchu, tchu*

I bet they could do a better mod than Star Citizen!

Personally, though, I have little interest in buying a "Black Shark III" unless it has FLIR and night attack capability. ( I don't see why they just don't make a Ka-52.)

I think that is the MAJOR change most sim pilots want. i.e Ka-50sh or Ka-50N. Give us what would have been if the Ka-50 had been produced instead of the Ka-52. Basically, a single seat Ka-52.

And for anyone who wonders why DCS would implement this, it's because they want MONEY and are a BUSINESS! (who wants to survive).

Yes. ED can you make one? *prettyplease*

 

*tchu, tchu*

Already got the Viper Block 50,

might as well get it's namesake the Viper Mk.II

Although you have repeated this many times to justify your wish for fantasy elements, it’s simply not true...

(And “near-imaginary” is an imaginary concept. )

As much as you say this, Weta, you should put it on a rubber stamp. It would save you some typing. :)

@Dehuman - It needs some pylons for Vhikers, Iglas, and rockets.