Jump to content

Black Shark 3?


QuiGon

Recommended Posts

Igla is shot and forget, no comparison with Vikhr in A-A engagement.

 

Oh Really, it is a shot and forget? Wow....

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About R-73 in choppers. It is too expensive for a low probability A-A encounter.

 

So it is better to leave Vikhr on base and carry IGLA just in case that there is a air threat....?

 

The R-73 was just too add capability, like have KA-52 carry it as it anyways had air radar for front quarter and was anyways rear designating targets for KA-50 at front and sides.

 

Same thing can be said why to carry bombs or S-13 rockets or even anti-ship and anti-radar missiles as main weapons are cannon and S-8 rockets.

 

Igla is pretty good for that.

 

No, not when compared to Vikhr, Ataka and Hermes.

And from those Vikhr was easiest to use because multi functional warhead prior launch.

 

Ka-50 was a test prototype for Ka-52

 

 

Wrong, KA-50 was even ordered for production before KA-52 designs were finished. The KA-50 was meant to replace Mi-24 fleet on numbers of 2000.

The KA-52 was meant to be group leader and offer capabilities from radars for target search.

 

The KA-50 was not prototype to make KA-52.

 

maybe igla was really tested but never implemented at the beginning probably because the weapon was not ready at this moment, I mean The improved igla for this task.

If you talk about the early 90’s igla then was not reliable for choppers. That’s why the did full implementation for the time on Ka-52

 

Our KA-50 #25 is from 2001-2005 era, and IGLA-V was ready and in use. We are not talking about Strela-2 or first version of IGLA.

It is true that each variant has improved performance etc, but IGLA has never been bad like original Strela was.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buddy... one things is the original Igla for Manpaps, The Original Igla for Manpads improved and I was talking about the Igla that was improved to be used also for choppers... don’t think wrong because you see Igla on choppers that doesn’t mean all the Igla variants work properly in Ka-50. That issue could be a reason for delaying a specific weapon even when the avionics are ready awaiting the weapon.


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm tired of reading through 75 pages of speculation and arguing about whether the ED version of the ka-50 will be fictional or not, third pylon, glass cockpit, flir, rwr...

And not a single quote from any developer about what will actually in the new chopper or not. It would be nice to have some reliable information about what will change and what new features we will get, whether they actually ever existed, only exist/-ed in the ka-52, or existed on different prototypes, but not together on the same airframe or production models or where only planed but never implemented due to <insert reason here>.

 

So here is the actual evidence for what we will get and not get:

 

From what I can see here we get no glass pit: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=213634&d=1562942750

I don't see an RWR either.

From what I can see here we get no third pylon: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=210977&stc=1&d=1559310569

And from the same picture we see that we will not get a FLIR turret either.

 

So as much as others or I want any or all of those features and they would greatly improve the capabilities of the helicopter, whether they existed on any version of the ka-50 or ka-52 or not, I see no actual evidence of any of them actually being implemented.

 

So I don't see the point of this discussion. ED isn't giving us any information, doesn't answer any question or reacting to any of this talk, so all I can do is rely on what little scraps of information they they do give us every 2 months in the news posts. And all of that information is: Nope, not gonna happen.

 

So unless you have any other actual proof, could we please stop with the 'oh but it was a prototype, and if it had been developed more, it would have FLIR/RWR/Radar/Third pylon/Glass cockpit/<insert feature here> for sure.' nonsense and get back to the facts?

 

Summary

We get:

- A/A IR Missiles (Igla)

- President S MWS + IR Jammer

 

We will not get:

- FLIR

- Optics with more than crap field of view and limited zoom

- 6 Pylons

- RWR

- Glass pit

- Radar

- Ka-52

 

Anything else is speculation and whishful thinking.

 

We might possibly and reasonably get:

- Skval tracking with real contrast lock instead of cheating with living units

- Improved Vikhr A/A fragmentation and prox-fuse logic

- A hydraulic system that doesn't 100% fail both loops when one loop is hit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why I don't wish IGLA to KA-50 because it is useless in most scenarios. I want a actually working contrast-based tracking to Shkval and fragmentation sleeve with proximity fuze for Vikhr and be able use Vikhr as intended.

 

The time it takes to get IGLA aimed, locked and launched is more than I can get Vikhr locked to even a F/A-18C at sky at 3km distance and launch at it and down it.

 

And if I am going to fly with 12 Vikhr, I will always take them instead 4 IGLAS.

 

I don't know what kind of god you are to know how the igla is going to work, how long you'd need to lock a target or how you manage to lock onto an F18 at 3km unless it's straight, level, low and slow or parked on the ramp.

 

I won't presume to know, but logically it'd be silly, if not to say stupid, to design a system to only be used within 15 seconds after a 7 second warmup against a fast moving target. and with no means to reset it on a super expensive aircraft (other than to land, get out of the pit and replace a canister or liquid nitrogen). Surely they'd use the helicopter's ability to lift more than a foot solider to store extra coolant and use the generator while the missile is attached instead of what is probably the crappiest battery in all of history. The Aim-9s can be used for 2 hours in cooling mode, and even afterwards track very nicely in a rear aspect angle. The R60 and R72 on the jets work for hours on end. I don't see why the IGLA would only be usable for that short amount of time.

But of course if have any actual proof of how they will be implemented by ED, then go on ahead and share it with me and others.

 

I for one can't lock even an A10 with the shkval. The cursor is way too slow or way too fast, depending on if you use the ministick or keyboard. So you have to position the cursor in front of your target, while zoomed out, any pray that the target flies through the 0.001° lock box and then frame perfectly hit the lock button.

If you zoomed in, the target just zips through the field of view of the camera way too fast to react. Even with the HMD you can't get accurate enough to lock that tiny dot in the sky.

Then the target just needs to climb over the 2° upwards gimbal limit to break the lock, and surely enough you have to tilt up to even start locking because the hostile aircraft is usually up and above you anyway, as you are meant to be low and near the deck while anything that threatens you is at 3000ft or above usually.

While you do tilt up, you have to not only concentrate on locking up a fast mover with bad optics, but also not crash into the trees behind you, fight the helicopter to turn to either side as you fly backwards.

Then you need to line up your missile and keep the target locked for 4-15 seconds while maneuvering your helicopter to keep that crappy, narrow field of view on the shkval on target all that time.

 

So no, the Vihkr is crap as an A/A missile and is practical at best only against helicopters. It's frustrating to use, requires maneuvering and high workload for the entire duration of the engagement and more than likely gets you into a bad position to be shot at than if you'd just land in some forest and wait it out.

I for one would appreciate a turn my head and fire and forget kinda of missile for self defense. And if I fly in a group, i'd be willing to sacrifice 6 vikhrs for 4 iglas (from the pictures we get a rack with 4, not 2) on one pylon if I know that hostile aircrafts can be a factor and as usual cap is nowhere to be found. And since the S-8 don't really do anything but tickle infantry, If I can mount them on the inner stations, all the better, I'd never mount anything else anymore.

Also what is wrong with rockets in this sim? Just yesterday I loaded up 156x 20mm rockets on the hornet, parked 30 trucks in a straight line and unloaded all of the rockets in a pretty decent lineup and I killed 5 trucks. A single bullet from the 30mm gun is more effective than a salvo of 30 rockets. Same goes for the S8 and the bushmaster on the ka-50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we have Mistral on the Gazelle, fixed wingers are starting to consider choppers a little bit more than a flying school bus that they can play with when they are bored. Stinger, Mistral and SA-16 Igla are all based on more or less the same design and concept. They were meant to be shot from a manpads by someone with little experience or training. So in essence, you roughly aim in the direction of the threat and when you got the continuous beep, you press the trigger. Fun fact that I learnt while visiting the plant manufacturing the SA-16 many years ago, the manpads version of the Igla doesn't even require you to confirm the launch. Just keep it aimed at the target and it launches automatically when it is acquired. So much for the safety of fire. Lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FalcoGer. They left a door for imagination. They Affirm will be a second optional cockpit with extra features. So in this case this extra features are not yet been shown.

 

when we talk about Ka-52, we talk about AI. that will be really great if they implement it in a wingman group, at least to improve the lack of RWR in a group with Ka-52, as well the lack of Flir will be addressed by Ka-52.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KA-50 is 1989-1992 vintage. As it was at twilight of Soviet empire. Russia did experiment with some one offs and mods of KA-50 with IR sensors. But ultimately, and I think this was becouse of KA-50 crash and death of General of helicopter forces at controls, Russia decided that for combat helicopters, a two man crew is wiser. As Western armed forces concluded. So Russians developed KA-52 for its planned amphib ships, and Frontal Aviation went with MIL-28N Night Hunter. Advanced variants of Mil-24/35 Hind are gonna be with us for at least next 20 years.

Ironically, Americans now are pursuing contra-rotating types, for future airlift and attack helicopter, but one with rigid blades. An alternative and possible replacement for UH-60, Americans are also developing smaller tilt-rotor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
This thread has been a classic example of how the internet works.

 

2 people repeat over and over (truly ad nauseum) their own mistaken belief that:

 

1/ The Ka-50 only ever existed as an experimental precursor to the Ka-52 that was dropped by the Russian military because of its single cockpit (despite being repeatedly told that there are 15 - 16 examples in service today - Does the fact there were only ever 21 B2 built mean they were never taken into production ?)

&

2/ The Ka-50 at some stage had a variant with 3 pylons - despite having absolutely no evidence of this beyond a failure of imagination regarding an unexplained switch position label in the cockpit.

 

& eventually so many people have read what they say that their statements become evidence of their own truth, and a myth begins....

 

By E.D.'s own admission, a Ka-50 with 3 pylons or with mounted Igla is an imaginary airplane. Not a little known experimental version of the Ka-50, just an exercise in imagination.

 

I don't understand how a community so nit picky about details, and that can argue so strenuously against flight aids as 'cheats', are so happy that E.D. have decided to build a fantasy version of the aircraft because it will make flying it so much more fun....

 

It's not a simulation of something if the thing its simulating is imaginary, and a 3 pylon Ka-50 with IGLA is an imaginary aircraft (either something Chizh just wanted to do 'cause he liked the idea, or the 'least' imaginary thing E.D. could think of to add the existing module to tempt people into buying another version & so fund the upgrade on the existing Black Shark module).

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

It is a fantasy aircraft.

 

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

 

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

 

I don't mind that you're keen for a more capable aircraft, I'm slightly disappointed that E.D. have decided to follow that path, and I'm surprised that some of the people posting in favour of adding fantasy weapons systems to the Ka-50 have been very self righteous in other threads about denouncing aids for the casual player (such as labelling the ability to mark your position on the moving map without resorting to dead-reckoning navigation a 'cheat').

 

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

 

 

 

Thank you for clarifying this multiple times, and continuing your crusade in killing the myth that this is was valid little known experimental feature, but some people will believe what they want irregardless of what facts you throw at them ( IE like flat earthers)

 

 

I too don't subscribe to ED's POV of justifying such a non documented, and non implemented feature, even if some here would like it because it would make ka50 more "competitive" in multiplayer.

 

I too wont be buying a BS3 if such fantasy features are forced down our throats.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too don't subscribe to ED's POV of justifying such a non documented, and non implemented feature, even if some here would like it because it would make ka50 more "competitive" in multiplayer.

 

 

ED knows they won't sell it if they don't give us what we want. :) And that includes FLIR.

 

 

The copter is plain UNSURVIVABLE on a modern battlefield, when every boy and his dog has an F-18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, Americans now are pursuing contra-rotating types, for future airlift and attack helicopter, but one with rigid blades.

 

It's not really ironic as it's a pretty different configuration. They're using a pusher prop to achieve much higher speeds so counter-rotating rotors make sense to maintain directional stability.

 

I too wont be buying a BS3 if such fantasy features are forced down our throats.

 

What if they made such configuration optional so both camps would be happy? At least, I hope they'll do that.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if they made such configuration optional so both camps would be happy? At least, I hope they'll do that.

 

No. There is always somebody suggesting this if features are being discussed. ED needs to make a choice. Either they stick to real life as much as possible, or they go down the 'what if' or fantasy path. I'm pretty sure they will lose a lot of fans if they choose the latter. The optional thing does not automatically make it so that both camps are happy. The camp that wants it does not care because they get it, but the camp that does not want it still wont agree with it anyway because they do not want it in the first place.

''Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction.''

Erich Fromm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED knows they won't sell it if they don't give us what we want. :) And that includes FLIR.

 

 

The copter is plain UNSURVIVABLE on a modern battlefield, when every boy and his dog has an F-18.

 

They’ve said no FLIR, and I guess it’s true that even if you were to buy it, you’d still have control of the load out and circuit breakers....

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. There is always somebody suggesting this if features are being discussed. ED needs to make a choice. Either they stick to real life as much as possible, or they go down the 'what if' or fantasy path. I'm pretty sure they will lose a lot of fans if they choose the latter. The optional thing does not automatically make it so that both camps are happy. The camp that wants it does not care because they get it, but the camp that does not want it still wont agree with it anyway because they do not want it in the first place.

 

Well, while it does seem a bit odd, you won't see a Mi-28N or Ka-52 in the sim, so I guess this is the reason ED is considering going with the somewhat upgraded 'what-if' Ka-50 variant.

 

Since mounting Igla's would be a pretty straightforward modification, I think calling it a fantasy is a bit too far. Do you also only play 100% historical missions/campaigns in the game?


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Translate

 

No. There is always somebody suggesting this if features are being discussed. ED needs to make a choice. Either they stick to real life as much as possible, or they go down the 'what if' or fantasy path…

Google Translate will help you. :smilewink:

Help on abbreviations: В-В, ВВ – AA (air-to-air); УР В-В – AAM (air-to-air missile); НАР – unguided rocket; СУВ – weapon system.

До того как мы пообщались с летчиком у нас была некоторая надежда на возможность использования ракет типа "Игла". Но он четко сказал, что в реале их нет.

Косвенное подтверждение - нет ни одной фотографии Ка-50 с ракетами В-В.

Явное подтверждение - в кабине вертолета нет никаких пультов или блоков относящихся к применению ракет В-В и СУВ даже не знает, что это такое.

Переключатель был всегда. Но по факту никаких ракет ВВ на Ка-50 не было. Мы сделали так же как в реале.

Поддержка, планировалась, но не реализована.

В частности потому, что такие достаточно мощные ракеты как Р-73 способны вызвать газодинамические проблемы у двигателей (вспомни упавший Ми-28 после пуска НАР).

Именно по этому сейчас планируют устанавливать на Ка-52 более легкие ПЗРК Игла. У них выхлоп значительно меньше и есть стартовый, вышибной заряд.

Ну, вот после падения Ми-28 на него внедрили систему охлаждения входящего воздуха водо-спиртовой смесью. Чему вероятно рады технические службы. ))

На Ка-50 такого не было. Ну и поскольку вертолет не имел законченного технического лица на момент закрытия программы, то до ракет ВВ руки ни у кого не дошли.

Ещё раз, последний. Вертолет - разработка камовцев. Оружие В-В на борту 25 - Ваши личные домыслы, не подтверждённые ничем. Строить или изменять модель на основании чьих-то утверждений со ссылками на Википедию мы не будем.

 

PS Ка-50 было выпущено не очень-то и много, так что различия в конкретных экземплярах вполне закономерны.

So it was before. Now times have changed, and with them the views of the ED on business.

Я предлагаю сильно не заморачиваться в поиске причин появления Игл на Ка-50ED, а просто принять это как данность. В данном случае - нам так захотелось.

"Nothing personal, it's just business." © :dunno:

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it´s true that the Ka-50 really never was able or intended to use the R-73 or the IGLA it´s really interesting to see that even scientific researchers like FAS Military Analysis Network or Jane's are listing the R-73 and IGLAs as possible armaments for the Ka-50.

___________________________________________

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Looking forward to it, Belsimtek!:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Translate

 

If it´s true that the Ka-50 really never was able or intended to use the R-73 or the IGLA…

Help on abbreviations: ТЗ – statement of work, technical project.

… [ISBN 978-5-9907714-8-2]…

<…>

Советские и западные исследования были учтены при разработке Ка-50, особенно требования к обзорности. Первоначально ТЗ, согласованное военными и конструкторами, определяло наличие на борту двух авиационных ракет «воздух-воздух» Р-73. По дополнению №1 к ТЗ от 1987 года противовоздушное вооружение ограничилось ПЗРК «Игла-С». Но в дальнейшем Минобороны СССР потеряло интерес к концепции использования ударного вертолёта в качестве истребителя…

— Стр.226.

<…>

Обновлённый Ка-50Ш был подготовлен в июне 1999 года и демонстрировался на выставке в Нижнем Тагиле, а затем на МАКС-1999 в Жуковском. На пилонах были также подвешены ракеты «воздух-воздух» типа Р-73 и 9М39 «Игла», однако средств на реальные испытания по поражению воздушных целей Заказчик так и не выделил.

<…>

— Стр.112.

<…>

 

… it´s really interesting to see that even scientific researchers like FAS Military Analysis Network or Jane's are listing the R-73 and IGLAs as possible armaments for the Ka-50.

Maybe they think that they know something more than the developers of the Ka-50 helicopter themselves? :)

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you!

 

 

 

So if I understand it correctly it was planned to use R-73 or Iglas and then the Army rejected the idea. And 1999 there was a Ka-50 with AA-missiles on it´s pylons which never have been tested or shot.

 

 

 

So, can I assume that it would technically be possible to shoot a Igla from a pylon, but never has been tested? I mean the Igla only uses the IR seeker head, right? No need for any target acquisition from the Ka-50 weapon control system necessary, no?

___________________________________________

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Looking forward to it, Belsimtek!:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Translate

 

… So if I understand it correctly it was planned to use R-73 or Iglas…

Yes, at first the R-73 missiles were planned, but then the plans changed, and the Igla missiles were planned to be used instead.

 

… and then the Army rejected the idea…

The Army then had no money to implement all this, so at that time the idea remained nothing more than an idea.

 

… And 1999 there was a Ka-50 with AA-missiles on it´s pylons which never have been tested or shot…

You can hang anything you like, but without completing the full cycle of state tests, no one will ever allow the use of weapons from a combat helicopter.

 

… So, can I assume that it would technically be possible to shoot a Igla from a pylon, but never has been tested? I mean the Igla only uses the IR seeker head, right? No need for any target acquisition from the Ka-50 weapon control system necessary, no?

How, without the participation of the weapon control system, will the pilot make preparations for launching the missiles (open the covers of the launch tubes, remove the missiles in the launch tubes from the stoppers, launch gyroscopes and cool the infrared homing of the missiles, etc.), or for example, learns that the infrared homing has captured the target and the launch is allowed? No, it’s technically impossible to simply launch the Igla from the pylon.

 

Original in Russian

… So if I understand it correctly it was planned to use R-73 or Iglas…

Да, сначала планировались ракеты Р-73, но затем планы изменились, и вместо них планировали использовать ракеты «Игла».

 

… and then the Army rejected the idea…

У Армии тогда не было денег на реализацию всего этого, поэтому на тот момент идея осталась не более чем идеей.

 

… And 1999 there was a Ka-50 with AA-missiles on it´s pylons which never have been tested or shot…

Повесить можно всё что угодно, однако без завершения полного комплекса государственных испытаний, никто и никогда не разрешит применять вооружение с боевого вертолёта.

 

… So, can I assume that it would technically be possible to shoot a Igla from a pylon, but never has been tested? I mean the Igla only uses the IR seeker head, right? No need for any target acquisition from the Ka-50 weapon control system necessary, no?

Каким образом, без участия системы управления вооружением, пилот произведёт подготовку к пуску ракет (откроет крышки пусковых труб, снимет ракеты в пусковых трубах со стопоров, запустит гироскопы и охлаждение ИК-головок самонаведения ракет, и т.д.), или например узнает о том, что ИК-головка самонаведения захватила цель и пуск разрешён? Нет, просто так пустить с пилона «Иглу» технически невозможно.

 


Edited by S.E.Bulba
correction.

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Help on abbreviations: ТЗ – statement of work, technical project.

 

 

 

Maybe they think that they know something more than the developers of the Ka-50 helicopter themselves? :)

 

Or maybe forum users bring out have outdated information ( outdated publication, based on planned features that never became reality), or maybe thier just flat out wrong.

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How, without the participation of the weapon control system, will the pilot make preparations for launching the missiles (open the covers of the launch tubes, remove the missiles in the launch tubes from the stoppers, launch gyroscopes and cool the infrared homing of the missiles, etc.), or for example, learns that the infrared homing has captured the target and the launch is allowed? No, it’s technically impossible to simply launch the Igla from the pylon.

 

 

Wow, now that you have described it, I think my idea was a little short sighted:music_whistling: I just thought if the Igla is a manpad the launching sequence can´t be that complicated:doh:

 

But you are absolutely right.:thumbup:

___________________________________________

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Looking forward to it, Belsimtek!:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Translate

 

Or maybe forum users bring out have outdated information ( outdated publication, based on planned features that never became reality)…

I have cited information from a 2016 source written in direct cooperation with the JSC Kamov.

 

… or maybe thier just flat out wrong.

Or maybe, in reality, forum users are not at all far from the truth when they say the following:

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

:)

 

Original in Russian

Or maybe forum users bring out have outdated information ( outdated publication, based on planned features that never became reality)…

Я привёл информацию из источника 2016 года, написанного при непосредственном сотрудничестве с ОАО «Камов».

 

… or maybe thier just flat out wrong.

Или может в действительности пользователи форума вовсе не далеки от истины, когда говорят следующее:

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

:)

 

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No, it’s technically impossible to simply launch the Igla from the pylon."

 

Pfft...

 

The ground crew can do all that prep work... then when the chopper is pointed at the target the pilot can just "hope" and then pull the trigger.

 

Easy peazy. Isn't that basic Russian military doctrine?

Nvidia RTX3080 (HP Reverb), AMD 3800x

Asus Prime X570P, 64GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals (Using VJoy and Gremlin to remap Throttle and Clutch into a Rudder axis)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Google Translate

 

"No, it’s technically impossible to simply launch the Igla from the pylon."

 

Pfft...

 

The ground crew can do all that prep work... then when the chopper is pointed at the target the pilot can just "hope" and then pull the trigger.

 

Easy peazy. Isn't that basic Russian military doctrine?

What is the point of writing incompetent posts if, as I understand it, you can’t even imagine how the Igla MANPADS work? :)

 

Original in Russian

 

Какой смысл писать некомпетентные посты, если Вы, как я понял, даже не представляете как работает ПЗРК «Игла»? :)

 

Sorry, I don't speak English, so I use Google Translate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...