Avimimus

Thanks! That is pretty neat. I assume that the 16xHermes loadout is also limited by weight (rather than just the control electronics)? If it wasn't for weight and it was only limited by having electronic for 16 missiles, it would seem that all of the missiles could have been mounted on two hard-points! P.S. I always assumed (based on how it was modelled) that the UPP-800 just had electronics in it which switched between tubes... and central electronics on the Ka-50 just controlled the elevation of the rack and sent firing signals to either the left or right racks (or both) as needed. But this is just an assumption. P.P.S. Is there a designation (e.g. 9Axxxx) for Hermes-A known yet?

Thanks! A quick question: I've seen a photo of a Ka-52 with APU-6 Vikhr racks on both the inner and outer hardpoints (for a total of 24 missiles)! Is this photoshopped/fake? I had assumed it was fake - but the fact that the Ka-52 has flown Hermes missiles on all of the four main hard-points makes me wonder if such a loadout is possible?

Very interesting - thank you!

Interesting. The Shturm/Ataka and Hermes both use radio command guidance (at least in part)... with the newest versions of the Shturm using terminal laser guidance for improved accuracy at range. However, the Vikhr 9k121/APU-6 uses laser beam riding for the entire flight - which would seem to be a simpler system and one that would be in place - even in the earlier production? I always assumed it was designed around the 9k121 and these other newer systems were introduced later.

A quick internet search would show that Ka-52 has also carried the Vikhr... and that modern production versions are using Hermes-A missiles... ...So, yeah, there is a production series that can carry Shturm, a production series carrying Hermes, and at least the early versions could carry the Vikhr...

Ah, but I think that was a Polish modification :D Now the mounting of an AGS-17 firing out of the door position - I'm pretty sure that was Russian (as was the use of S-24 240mm rockets from the Mi-8)

....It is interesting that we are arguing about whether or not pre-production aircraft have been conclusively shown in published photographs to have had an advertised capability ...that is the "fantasy vs. not-fantasy contention". We know at least a couple of prototypes didn't have the capability... (just as some of the prototypes undoubtedly didn't carry weapons)... but the rest is potentially speculation. While we're speculating about a lack of capability etc. I thought I'd add a speculation: What if part of the original project was marketing for Kamov/ROSOBORON to show the world that the single seat helicopter works? What if Kamov is secretly supporting the MWS and air-to-air upgrades for BS3 as updated advertising?

If I recall correctly there are photos of a Ka-50 flying with an R-73 (probably an inert one)... I can't remember which pylon though. As for the gas ingestion argument - well that would equally affect the Ka-52 wouldn't it? If there are filters or other solutions on the 52 they could be implemented on the 50... it is all pretty plausible. As Rogue Trooper points out, the old argument that air-to-air weapons on helicopters is nonsense given the number of countries which have flirted with the capability (and the U.S. deploying it on occasion).

Well... why not have some 4th or 5th generation lower-fidelity models as an option for those who want them? The only time the Su-27 fired missiles in anger was an Ethiopian aircraft... does this mean that we shouldn't shoot air-to-air missiles from the Su-27 in any other theatre? The simulation inherently involves counter-factual scenarios which didn't happen... Also, should nothing which is partially classified be modelled? Or can a few systems be partly made-up or left out entirely? Because if we require that all systems be modelled fully then we're talking about aircraft from the 1950s only... What I'm saying, is there is a spectrum in the degree of how speculative the simulation is... there will always be speculation - the question is how much. I for one am still a tiny bit annoyed that the "Su-39" with a Kopyo radar pod that ED made was never released to the public...

"Aviation and Cosmonautics 2015 09" in the article "History of the Black Shark through the eyes of creators". ("Авиация и космонавтика 2015 09", "История Черной Акулы глазами создателей"). "Генеральный предположил, что в этих условиях необходимо модернизировать объектовую ПВО, одним из важных элементов которой мог бы стать вертолет-перехватчик. Задачей такой машины было бы оперативное реагирование на возникающую угрозу со стороны «нетрадиционных» средств воздушного нападения и уничтожение целей, применение по которым зенитно-ракетных систем и истребителей неоправданно или технически невозможно. В этом качестве фирма «Камов» предлагала использовать истребитель Ка-50. Такой перехватчик предполагалось оснастить исключительно серийно производящимися системами. В качестве средства обнаружения воздушных целей должна была быть установлена БРЛС «Копье», разработанная и внедренная в серию ОАО «Фазотрон-НИИР», и оптико-электронная прицельная система ОАО «Геофизика-АРТ», аналогичная устанавливаемой на различных модификациях истребителей Су-27. В качестве средства поражения предлагалось использовать управляемые ракеты Р-77 класса «воздух–воздух», пусковые установки ПЗРК «Игла», а также перспективный многоцелевой комплекс управляемого оружия «Гермес» Тульского ПКБ. Вертолет-перехватчик с помощью 30-мм пушки 2А42 мог бы эффективно бороться с «нетрадиционными» средствами воздушного нападения, к которым С.В. Михеев отнес в первую очередь БПЛА, легкомоторные самолеты, парапланы и мотодельтапланы. В письме особо обращалось внимание на то, что новый комплекс «Акулы» построен по схеме открытой архитектуры, что позволяло достаточно легко интегрировать вертолет-перехватчик в единое информационное поле противовоздушной обороны страны. Это обеспечивало оперативный взлет и вывод в район встречи с целью вертолета-перехватчика, а, следовательно, сокращало время реакции ПВО на возникшую воздушную угрозу. Немаловажным обстоятельством была возможность сопряжения БРЭО Ка-50 с потоком информации от самолетов дальнего радиолокационного обнаружения А-50 и проходивших в то время испытания вертолетов радиолокационного дозора Ка-35."

It is interesting that no one is bringing up the fact that the Igla was marketed as an option for the Ka-50... so it might not have been done, but the capacity was planned/considered/offered. There are even some relatively credible reports that a version was offered with the RVV-AE/R-77 (albeit with a completely new cockpit/nose-section). So, the idea of wiring in an Igla seems pretty tame to me. The thing that is controversial in my mind is having a third set of hardpoints! That is really sketchy! :)

Oh? This is news to me. I thought it was just a way to get simpler systems modelling on four of the aircraft as a packaged set.

Thanks for the reply! Yeah, I remember pictures of field mods with AGS-17 firing from the door, or PK machine guns tied to the gear struts! There are so many variants, retrofits, and so much history around this plane it can be hard to make sense of.

I believe they were fairly specialised variants...? In any case it requires quite a bit of new avionics and the Mi-8 wasn't as profitable as hoped (in spite of some of us valuing it more than jet fighters - we're a minority)!

Amusingly, your frustration over the inability to have FLIR is totally realistic... it has been suggested that the lack of a domestic FLIR was a major reason these helicopter projects weren't mass produced in the Soviet era.

I'm in the same place - I've played all manner of sims for years... and I don't have time anymore to learn the switchology for every aircraft... maybe one or two... but I'm really interested in having simplified 'HOTAS based' options.

We know that some proposals (e.g. the Ka-50-2) offered a third set of pylons (along with a nose mounted turret)... but I suspect it is more likely that it is just the switch activating additional electronics. This might explain my excitement :)

So, Kamov's are often photographs with only some of the tubes attached to the APU-6 rack. The APU-6 is designed so that the tubes can be unbolted allowing it to routinely be equipped with less than the maximum number of six missiles per hard-point. I once saw it argued that this was a training configuration, but operationally deployed Kamovs (e.g. in Chechnya) carried less than the maximum number of missiles. Obviously, there are operational benefits (likely saving weight and increasing range) if one doesn't need more than a couple of missiles for the task. So I was wondering if anyone else thought this might be a nice (and easy to complete) addition to Black Shark 3?

I'm hungry for updates myself - it is the product I'm excited about. I do hope they will revise the weapon release for existing aircraft though (e.g. being able to set burst heights for cluster bombs, ripples for MDBs - even if it can only be done by ground crews it is necessary for effective employment - especially as cluster bombs get different default settings to suit the F/A-18c, A-10C etc. - planes that can configure them in flight). There is also hope that the success of MAC could lead us to see some new aircraft that won't get full fidelity models soon (e.g. Russian aircraft are deprioritised, as are Eurocanards - which can't really be modelled at full fidelity for legal reasons).

Thanks Ironhand! Having the real data helps clarify things. Surely the ripple speed can be adjusted by ground-crew though? At least that is my assumption - that the MER is somewhat configurable when the airplane is landed. Similarly, something MAC could really do with is having an ability to set the RBK settings to match the mission/attack profile (even if it can't be done while airborne - it is needed now that modelling is increasing in detail).

I think they may have at one point - but it was removed... probably the modelling was overly simplistic?

My humble suggestion as a future project: The Sukhoi T-12/Sh-90... the cancelled successor to the Su-25. Early variants even re-used Su-25 components for much of the fuselage (and some used Mig-29 engines): https://pkk-avia.livejournal.com/58714.html?nojs=1 This means that the Su-25T cockpit can be reused! It is pretty well documented for an unbuilt project, and would give us a higher performance Su-25 with an expanded weapon load and expanded sensors (at least by adding a hidden Fantasmagoria pod). So, it could be a relatively fun and quick aircraft to model.

...well, someone might keep using such a missile if they lacked an alternative?

Thank you!

IMHO, if the weapon is compatible with the fire control system then we should include it to represent other countries even if it isn't used by the U.S. in its version of the aircraft. For instance, the CF-188/CF-18 is almost identical to the F/A-18 version modelled, but uses a CRV-7 rocket pod. If we include skins, then why not include weapons?