KA50 MWS

 

TL:DR, things that are not known, are not getting modelled, eventually simplified to the basic principle of their working.

You don't read and then you try to argue against, and even first sentence is false. :thumbup:

DCS is full of things that are unknown and yet modeled and then people come and say that all is hard core, full pure factual data and very complex simulations.

And that is the problem.

DCS is full of just guesses and assumptions without any valid background data.

DCS models many things very well (to some point) like example a aircraft tires pressure at landing or a speed of the under carriage operation.

Superior simulation of the cockpit switches placements, 3D modeling, texturing etc. But then you even hit simple things with "No Function".

And we are actually talking very basic and simple things, unlike radar or thermal signature etc.

Lots of things that are "pulled from the hat". Just like as example in a another thread of Su-27 wings, where pilots say that aircraft withstands 9G and over, yet all is modeled for 8G and when you go over it you just lose wings snapping like toothpicks, all based just for "an industry standard stress ratio" because they don't have real information that engineers has.

The thing just is that there is no what so ever basis to anyone say that DCS is perfect military simulation, and make claims "things that are not known, are not getting modelled" because that just simply ain't true at all.

And all this thread is about a single switch in KA-50 cockpit that is already modeled there, labeled even with pop-up information "Not-implemented" and even manual says what it does and what is its purpose and "not implemented".

A-10C MWS system is just a simple led that comes up and lits up in RWR a direction of missile launch, no matter how accurately that thing would detect the launch or not.

KA-50 is done with co-operation with KAMOV to even include Vikhr missiles and all kind real flight wind tunnel data, but it is like world greatest secret that someone would tell by request, how would KA-50 MWS work at the time? Like does the LWS lights lit up to inform the incoming missile with the MWS light. Or would the MWS light just lit up or was there suppose to be something else added there, even if not be possible tell exactly what kind device?

ED would very well make a educated guess and just link the MWS with the LWS as I wrote above, and just call the day.

I don't know how it exactly was suppose to work. You don't know how it was meant to work. ED might not know exactly how it was suppose to work. But what does it anyway matters when it was suppose to be there?

But clearly we don't know even how a rain hits the windshields or how a cockpit air condition rotors operate because those ain't implemented either and no one can do educated guess about the behavior of those two simple things.

All the books i´ve read from russian origin are saying the same.

Ka-52 was designed with around 75%-85% in common ( Kamov Bureau said ) with the after,centre fuselage design in common with the Ka-50 plus wings, landing gear, coaxial rotor, blades, engines, ejection seats and a lot more. So the huge alteration is on the onboard systems, cockpit layout, defensive systems and capabilities but the airframe design has a lot in common with the Ka-50.

The armor protection of the cockpit and the ammunition of the main gun were reduced but the overal weight increased to 600 kg.

So, it´s a new helicopter? Yes.

Has a lot in common with the Ka-50 airframe design? Yes of course. Almost 75% percent of the airframe is exactly the same.

This means the same aerodynamics? Not at all, for example the heavier Ka-52 has a max g-load factor of 3G, the Ka-50 3.5, and also the max climbing vertical speed is less, 8 m/s instead 10 m/s for the 50´s. Range and max speed are the same.

The real difficult part is obtaining info on the operation of the software and computers that distinguish real missiles from spurious signals. A guy who works on software for the RAAF told me that even they don't know what's inside the control boxes for their MAWS- if something stops working they send it to the US and a little while later it comes back fixed. I gather he knew a bit more about some aspects of it, but naturally it's all super classified and not for the ears of nosy civilians. ED could probably 'fake' that side of the system with a simple probability based model: a certain % chance of correctly detecting a real launch, combined with a chance of giving a false alarm every now and then. This would still be more detailed than the in-game A-10C's MAWS, which never gives false alarms and seems to correctly detect any launch it can see.

This is a problem I have found to be at ED fanbase, some people just thinks that when a military aircraft has this small black box in it, the developers has actually opened up one or get the schematics and virtually build up, wired and done all the complex system to the letter. Even if it is so simple thing as a cyclic buttons and such.

Instead they can't believe that all is just set with simple codes "If input A is received from the player, output must be that in 3D that this model gets moved this way visually" -what happens when player press trigger. And then simple code just tells that some other things needs to be done.

It is true that in specific areas more complex simulation is done, like a fuel tanks operation where it is simulated about the fuel consumption the fuel flow in pipes, the volume of the aux tank with pressure that is emptied when aircraft operates in negative G-forces, and then otherwise in positive that tank gets filled from main fuel tanks etc. And for programmers that is a easy task really, and they don't need to know exactly the pipes diameter or even lengths to do educated simulation. And even if it would be wrong, we or even real pilots would likely not notice it at all as long it goes as flight manual states it does.

Yes it is nice that some newer aircrafts has the 3D model with actual damage parts that does report to the system that it is damaged and response is correct assumed behavior, but virtual pilots doesn't much know about that, or even care as when they are up on virtual skies they just want to shoot the other aircraft down instead try to do specific damage etc.

And we are talking about one, already modeled switch with already mentioned function in the manual.... With in reality implemented hardware etc and all that is required is to make the same assumptions and educated guesses as was done with the MWS in A-10C or so.

It can't be so bad because our radars and such are anyways just rolling dices once a second "Do you see me now?" and doing simple calculations like "You have a ECM ON, okay it means then that I only can lock you 0.89x from max lock range then" without any other kind "hard evidence" simulation.

And whole world ends again when talking about that small switch in the KA-50 cockpit, with educated guess or some effort to get official reply what it was suppose to do without giving any state secrets. :D

It would be like some ex-pilot comes by and say "That light is suppose to blink when it detected the launch and that button to press to test its operational status".

So 3D modeler goes and makes a small change to model, coder comes and makes simple code lines "If this function is set "ON" then blink "X" if at the range "Z" of player unit "Y" has a "IR_Missile" launch".

No 3D modeling for wires and such. Just linking that virtual electricity to some black box again (like LWS) and call the day.

And all it would require that someone comes and points a finger and say few phrases what it was suppose to do.

And once you read and work with lots of these military devices etc, there are people who can do very good educated guesses how the thing could work.

But we are happy that A-10C has this perfectly operational MWS, no questions asked about its "operational accuracy".

Not sure who reads and who doesn`t, but the fact that you try to argue with Su27 (which I EXPLICITLY mentioned as part of FC) which came from a game that is very very old now just proves my point. FC shouldn't be measured at all, they have been fixed slowly but surely. As to it being made PFM afterwards, well, if you knew a little IRL you would realize that just as with anything material, planes also come in better and worse samples. The only difference is that they are tested up to a higher point to guarantee at least base performance and that they`ll hold together during exercising it. If we knew breaking points and many other data, we would have an DCS Su 27 already, but we don`t, so we don`t have it. (Surely, there is a limit to what can be simulated at all, at some point you have to rely on info from producers of these planes, you cannot physically take every aircraft to it's braking point for the sake of simulation)

Again, you talk about "many things", and quite honestly your argumentation is just really weak. Give me specifics, then we can talk. Beyond that, it seems like you made your mind, not going to try and change it either. But know that your perception of how things are done in DCS is absolutely false.

In fact I did read what you wrote, but I cannot buy your arguments which all refer to old FC-planes or technical limitations of the old engine, which is being thoroughly updated. You don`t seem to understand that point for whatever reason, not sure why... The rest you mention is really of no relevance, or are you going to argue over how many birds we can see around our planes? Sure would be nice to have, but does this in any way get close to defining a simulation of this magnitude? Maybe it is "bird-simulator" you seek? Surely you got to have better arguments than that? (and FC planes).

I ask you again, why don't we have F22/F16/F-whatever + all Russian planes if it's GUESSTIMATION?! Why is ED contracted by militaries around the world to create simulators (and planes) for them? Whatever we have is whatever is available to us. What isn`t known much about isn`t. On what possible basis are you talking when saying "we don`t know anything about radars etc...".

The fact remains that such a Ka-50 has never seen combat.

That's just opinion stated as fact GG

Some airframes were fitted with RWR (or are you disputing that ?), but no-one is really sure which ones.

You say

The Ka-50 seen in combat is this 80's deal that was used for COIN in the 90's. That's it.

So you're saying some aircraft saw combat (or are you saying COIN isn't combat ?)

but you don't have a definitive list of which ones saw combat, and you don't have a definitive list of which ones had RWR fitted, & you need both these lists to make a definitive statement that none of the planes on the list of aircraft that have had a RWR fitted is on the list of aircraft that performed COIN operations in Chechnya...

Also

They are not front-line aircraft. What they are is a rejected concept.

Actually, they weren't, they won the competition to be the front line aircraft, but a shortage of cash and political lobbying stopped them being produced in the numbers intended.

"During operational testing from 1985 to 1986, the workload on the pilot was found to be similar to that of a fighter-bomber pilot, such that the pilot could perform both flying and navigation duties"

Which is about what you find when you fly it in DCS, and why it remains a popular aircraft in the SIM.

Political lobbying isn't a foreign concept even in the US military is it ?

How many times has the US air force suggested getting rid of the A-10 ?

That plane has been "rejected as a concept" on a number of occasions, but for political, not practical reasons.

Think also of the KC-X competition that was won by Northrop Grumman and EADS/Airbus , but political pressure led to the tender being re-run with specifications that favoured an all US aircraft. Politics before performance and cost...

(The chicanery that went on to make sure NATO adopted the US 5.56×45mm round instead of a European 7mm intermediate calibre round also makes an interesting read on the triumph of politics over practical outcomes)

The borts involved in combat trials over Chechnya were Bort Nº 24 and Bort Nº 25

Both of them with the LWS but without ANY MWS installed.

As could be seen here, but not very clear, bort 24 and 25 wit the Ka-29 that formed the BUG section over Chechnya. No MWS on the nose or rear section.

Bort 25 in Chechnya

Those were the only Ka-50 that saw combat. And ONLY bort 25 AFTER the Chechnya trials was fitted with a MWS for test purposes. Not a single Ka-50 ever received any MWS except bort 25. Only Bort 27 was fitted with the housing space to fit the MWS system but the pics you could find from that bort are lacking the real installation, only the space to fit the system.

So which BORT# is ours based on?

Anyway, if only one chopper was ever fitted with the system and that for testing purposes only, then yeah, I personally don't think it belongs here. Which pretty much wraps this little debate up, now doesn't it ;)

DCS is full of just guesses and assumptions without any valid background data.

There's certainly some, but that's still just a guess. Or should I rather call it an assumption?

"The borts involved in combat trials over Chechnya were Bort Nº 24 and Bort Nº 25

Both of them with the LWS but without ANY MWS installed.

As could be seen here, but not very clear, bort 24 and 25 wit the Ka-29 that formed the BUG section over Chechnya. No MWS on the nose or rear section. [

Bort 25 in Chechnya"

I]{actually, maybe my eyes are bad, but I couldn't read the bort of either aircraft in any of those pics}[/i]

"Not a single Ka-50 ever received any MWS except bort 25. Only Bort 27 was fitted with the housing space to fit the MWS system but the pics you could find from that bort are lacking the real installation, only the space to fit the system."

Because they're not fitted in that relatively recent photo of 27?

If 27 didn't have housings, then it did, how do we know it didn't have sensors, and now it doesn't ?

I don't know what your source of information is, but this certainly looks like the production line with 2 consecutive aircraft having MWS sensors fitted

Maybe they built 25 & 27 out of sequence, but if they both had them fitted 'at birth', then if only 2 aircraft had the housings fitted, and they were 25 & 27, and they were OEM, then the aircraft in the pictures can't be both 24 & 25, & 25 didn't get the system at a later date.

Still, maybe the photo is factory refurbishment (though why they would bring 27 back to the factory to fit housings, wire the system, but not install the MWS sensors is an interesting question), it still means that by your reckoning 25 ("018 was the first production airframe and they followed 019 to 028") is a 'production' run aircraft, that had a MWS fitted while in active service.

Also..

Isn't the DCS default bort 22 ? If it is the cockpit of 22 that we have, then it seems to have been wired for the MWS system - odd to do that if it has no housing for the sensors & so could never have had the system fitted.

If you're correct about only 2 airframes having the housings, it's more likely the cockpit was based on either 25 or 27, which gives it a 50/50 chance of being an airframe that had a functioning MWS at some stage in its active service 'career'.

Also - the photo of 25 'with the LWS & fancy bits removed' still appears to have the LWS sensors attached.

So which BORT# is ours based on?

 

Anyway, if only one chopper was ever fitted with the system and that for testing purposes only, then yeah, I personally don't think it belongs here. Which pretty much wraps this little debate up, now doesn't it ;)

 

 

 

There's certainly some, but that's still just a guess. Or should I rather call it an assumption?

Some years ago an ED member has written into the forums that it is the BORT# 24 IIRC

"The borts involved in combat trials over Chechnya were Bort Nº 24 and Bort Nº 25

Both of them with the LWS but without ANY MWS installed.

As could be seen here, but not very clear, bort 24 and 25 wit the Ka-29 that formed the BUG section over Chechnya. No MWS on the nose or rear section. [

Bort 25 in Chechnya"

I]{actually, maybe my eyes are bad, but I couldn't read the bort of either aircraft in any of those pics}[/i]

 

 

"Not a single Ka-50 ever received any MWS except bort 25. Only Bort 27 was fitted with the housing space to fit the MWS system but the pics you could find from that bort are lacking the real installation, only the space to fit the system."

 

Because they're not fitted in that relatively recent photo of 27?

If 27 didn't have housings, then it did, how do we know it didn't have sensors, and now it doesn't ?

 

I don't know what your source of information is, but this certainly looks like the production line with 2 consecutive aircraft having MWS sensors fitted

 

Maybe they built 25 & 27 out of sequence, but if they both had them fitted 'at birth', then if only 2 aircraft had the housings fitted, and they were 25 & 27, and they were OEM, then the aircraft in the pictures can't be both 24 & 25, & 25 didn't get the system at a later date.

 

Still, maybe the photo is factory refurbishment (though why they would bring 27 back to the factory to fit housings, wire the system, but not install the MWS sensors is an interesting question), it still means that by your reckoning 25 ("018 was the first production airframe and they followed 019 to 028") is a 'production' run aircraft, that had a MWS fitted while in active service.

 

Also..

 

Isn't the DCS default bort 22 ? If it is the cockpit of 22 that we have, then it seems to have been wired for the MWS system - odd to do that if it has no housing for the sensors & so could never have had the system fitted.

If you're correct about only 2 airframes having the housings, it's more likely the cockpit was based on either 25 or 27, which gives it a 50/50 chance of being an airframe that had a functioning MWS at some stage in its active service 'career'.

 

Also - the photo of 25 'with the LWS & fancy bits removed' still appears to have the LWS sensors attached.

Those are covers in this Picture. Nobody knows what is really installed there or will be installed later. Look to the one on the far right .. there is nothing.

Also the one in front of the Camera has the one piece roof mirror this makes sure that this is not the helicopter we have Simulated in DCS.

Also MWS systems are Optical/IR systems which will not have a good field of view through Paint.

You are correct Isegrim, it`s Bort 24. cannot recall where the thread was, but there was a link there to a good collection of pictures from outside and inside of the 24. If only I remembered where this thread was...

This is one of the multiple sources you can find about Ka-50 involved in combat trials over Chechnya. There are more but in russian. This is in english.

BUG Section over Chechnya

The bort numbers weren´t painted for obvious reasons, secrecy and protection. Even any of the 8 Ka-50 pilots involved shows the face in any pic or video for the same reason.

This is a real MWS installed in the Bort 25

And this is the Bort 27 with the housing but WIHTOUT the MWS installed. Covered with paint.

About the Arsenyev factory line, almost every production line Ka-50 were sended to the plant to receive improvements, upgrades and new test equipment at kamov´s own cost and not in a global regular way for each ka-50. No money at all to install the same equipment for all production ka-50.

Only Bort 25 received ever the functional MWS, and Bort 27 only the space to instal it.

The pic you are showing are from Ka-50 UNFINISHED line. They were several Ka-50 at Arsenyev in different stages of completion that were never finished and years after used to build several prototypes of the Ka-52.

Also i´ve found that bort 28 has the housing for the MWS but again not installed.

So Bort 25, installed, Bort 27-28, not installed. Only covered with paint. no equipment inside.

This is how it looks a real MWS with a cover protection, not painted.

 

Here's a better idea, just IMHO: Ask for another chopper that has all this stuff and is in service instead.

DCS: KA-52 CONFIRMED!!

the never ending discussion

 

fly lower and you dont need MWS in the Ka-50.

 

Reaper6 is a good example that flying low and slow will almost always cover you from enemy radar picking you up.

 

The Mi-8 also has no MWS...what about that Lady ?? She is heavily involved in BF, like the UH-1.

 

 

MWS for all !!!!

 

 

...you see where this leads to...nowhere

 

just my 2 cents

You're dreaming if you think your altitude or even speed have anything to do with being seen on enemy airborne radar. You can fly 1m off the deck and you may as well be at 10k. You can land and they will still pick you up. The only radar you have any chance of evading are EWR's or something similar. The radar in DCS needs a rework or a bit of tweaking when it comes to aircraft and low altitude.

Doppler filtering takes care of that. They should be able to see you even if landed but they cannot - the rework you're talking about is in fact opposite of what you want.

Currently a heli can hide in the notch. It should not be able to, not from a modern AI radar. So yes, speed plays a role. Altitude plays a role insofar as the fact that in DCS a look-up situation negates the notch.

If you're being assaulted by aircraft that have managed to pick you out visually before you vanish from radar, or if they are tracking you with thermals, all this radar-evading stuff doesn't matter.

You're dreaming if you think your altitude or even speed have anything to do with being seen on enemy airborne radar. You can fly 1m off the deck and you may as well be at 10k. You can land and they will still pick you up. The only radar you have any chance of evading are EWR's or something similar. The radar in DCS needs a rework or a bit of tweaking when it comes to aircraft and low altitude.

Mirmidon, BTW: thanks for the info, this debate notwithstanding. Highly interesting tidbits there :thumbup:

Thank you sir.

Honestly i would like the Ka-50 would had not suffered the economic restrictions Russia had in that period that stopped the development. If that wasn´t the case for sure now we will seeing now more Ka-50 constructed and with more systems like MWS and RWR.

But nothing happens with a side effect. Now Russia has the Ka-52, more capable, evolved and with a lot of stuff a Ka-50 would ever dream.

But the true is that. Only 11-12 production Ka-50 constructed, only one fitted with MWS, and only two with real combat experience in Chechnya. Thats all.

Am I crazy for remembering that the DCS Ka-50 used to have MWS? I remember being aware of missile launches back in the days before DCS World.

Well I think that in terms in reality it is the same if we have mws or not.

DCS is doing great job modeling the systems but I hardly believe there are any that are fully accurate. Why do you think shkval is fully accurate? Why you can't lock on a dead target then ? It is scriptet in certain situation you obtain lock and in other you don't. In reality I hardly believe it works so flawlessly and obtainig a lock is so easy.

They are all ACAP so will eventualy be mws.

Ka-50 is great module as it is no questions about that. But I would pay full price for BS3 with improved cockpit graphics and system upgrades.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

that the DCS Ka-50 used to have MWS?

As I remember it, it has always had just the LWS and nothing else.

Am I crazy for remembering that the DCS Ka-50 used to have MWS? I remember being aware of missile launches back in the days before DCS World.

No worries, You're not crazy. As I already wrote in previois posts, there was a time, when there was... let's name it "simplified" version of MWS, which was working same way as in Su-25T, so there was just vocal warning about missile in the air.

Radio assist...

...just vocal warning about missile in the air.

When was that? I've had the Shark from v1.0 and have no recollection of such a device.

It can be, You've been flying without radio assist.

Ach, that must be it. I've never used radio assist. Thanks for the clarification.

In soviet russia, you dont need MWS...

In soviet russia, SAM dont spot you... you spot SAM first!