thermals

[whitehot]

I know it 's a question that may already have been asked but..

 

Will the Ka-50 ever get some care, in the form of a FLIR channel for its FCS? Being accepted for use by the Russian armed forces only as a special operations support helicopter (being the Mi-28N selected to replace the hinds in gunship regiments), seems impossible to me that it can't operate properly at night.

 

I understand that the single seat version will not probably be employed in great numbers, and that the ka-52 alligator already comes out of factories with thermals.

 

Also, seems that a night variant of the 50 has been developed (ka-50N).

What about simply allowing the usage of the Mercury LLTV on one of the pilons? It is compatible with the Shkval optics suite, and I don't think it would be much of a difficulty, adapting it to the BS?

[Flagrum]

Are you talking about the real Ka-50 or our DCS Ka-50?

 

What is possible and what is not ... and also how (un)likely that might be what the real Ka-50s might be able to use ... can answer only the russians.

 

Keep in mind, the Ka-50s are basically just a bunch (iirc only 12 were built and today only about 8? are still alive) of prototypes where probably not two exists that are equipped with the same avionics. So, what they do with them ... who knows.

 

For the DCS Ka-50: this is modelled after one specific helo of those 12 - and that was without FLIR or LLTV. So we will most likely not see any of these "fictional" (for this specific exemplar) enhancements from ED.

[whitehot]

Are you talking about the real Ka-50 or our DCS Ka-50?

 

What is possible and what is not ... and also how (un)likely that might be what the real Ka-50s might be able to use ... can answer only the russians.

 

Keep in mind, the Ka-50s are basically just a bunch (iirc only 12 were built and today only about 8? are still alive) of prototypes where probably not two exists that are equipped with the same avionics. So, what they do with them ... who knows.

 

For the DCS Ka-50: this is modelled after one specific helo of those 12 - and that was without FLIR or LLTV. So we will most likely not see any of these "fictional" (for this specific exemplar) enhancements from ED.

 

I'm talking about the DCS Black Shark.

 

I understand that it was modeled after one of those helis you mentioned. Yet I think that in our simulator sometimes there should be some "flexibility" in regards to realism.

 

If the real Ka-50 doesn't seem to have a future, at least in russian service, still has an important role in DCS, being the only real gunship we have.

 

Also, I think that being DCS a combat sim, it should depict machines which are operational in their combat environment. Even if there is the need to compromise a little with realism (which is the first thing I'm looking for in DCS products), I wouldn't mind if OUR shark gets some vital combat system (that would be anyway realistically modeled after something real, and not "guessed" by the devs), that would give it a boost in both its capabilities and players fun.

 

As I said, even if giving the shark a FLIR suite is too much of a "compromise", making it "Mercury-ready" wouldn't be that unfeasible.. but anyway, just my two cents.

[Rangoon]

Also, I think that being DCS a combat sim, it should depict machines which are operational in their combat environment. Even if there is the need to compromise a little with realism (which is the first thing I'm looking for in DCS products), I wouldn't mind if OUR shark gets some vital combat system (that would be anyway realistically modeled after something real, and not "guessed" by the devs), that would give it a boost in both its capabilities and players fun.

 

I have generally felt this way, too. It's one thing to strive for 100% authenticity (which already isn't the case), and another to find a compromise between verifiable knowledge and responsible speculation if it's done with a high degree of integrity. I think a little *educated* and careful guesswork from the experts within ED (and partners) would be welcome by some (many?). Especially when it comes to modeling things that do exist and are neither cutting edge nor future tech. FLIR has been around. Radar has been around (I'm not suggesting radar be added to the Black Shark...but, Longbow?). These systems have broadly known capabilities and limitations, though a specific model of FLIR of course may not be precisely known.

 

Just as the manual so appropriately labels things as not implemented ("No function."), so could it label things as "speculative" and give brief details/arguments of the grounds for its modeling.

 

Perhaps there could be "variants" of each aircraft which include speculative systems, such that a server could limit their use. As DCS expands as a combat sim, I think there is a lot of value in this.

 

If this means that ED is "going casual" then I'm pretty sure none of us want it. But to hold the spirit of the "study sim" at the forefront during efforts like this could result in some even more realistic combat environments, as whitehot alludes to. ED is modeling a prototype, as Flagrum points out. But what sense is that in the long run? Why not model the Black Shark in its full glory, having been put into full military production? That seems like a short leap to make, and in the right hands for such treatment.

[rcjonessnp175]

Well considering their was real ka50 with full night capabilities I would really hope our dcs ka50 would get some love in that regards. We so need a gunship with those capabilities in this sim

[Flagrum]

These ideas and whishes are probably as old as our Blackshark itself...

 

But I seem to remember that ED once said that they consider DCS Blackshark as finished product and as such not planning to add new features to it (bug fixes and general, not module specific features aside).

[Rangoon]

But I seem to remember that ED once said that they consider DCS Blackshark as finished product and as such not planning to add new features to it (bug fixes and general, not module specific features aside).

 

:cry:

 

But DCS has evolved so much since the very beginning, too. They could revitalize the Black Shark relatively easily as time goes on and may find it worth the effort to put a new coat of paint on the old bird. To make use of the new features, etc., down the road. They could, right? Right? Please tell me they could. Please.

 

I won't waste any time arguing for why/how it makes sense as I'm sure it's already been done to death.

 

My life may come to a complete standstill once an Apache module is released, but until then, and even after I suspect, the Black Shark is an immensely important part of what DCS is (and the original aircraft).

 

The Black Shark is one of very few peaks in PC simming.

[Raptor9]

I agree with Flagrum, I wouldn't count on anything new for the Black Shark, just maintenance of the existing module to keep it current with each DCS update.

 

Having said that...yes, there were several Ka-50's fitted with different configurations of night-capable devices/targeting systems, only in prototype form. IIRC, the Black Shark manual even mentions them in the first chapter. While it would be nice to have, I would prefer a night-capable production chopper like the Russian Naval Aviation Ka-52K or the Russian Army/AF Mi-28NE "Night Hunter".

 

The problem of modeling a modern-day production attack helicopter (or any aircraft) in active military service is access to the source material.

[Rangoon]

While it would be nice to have, I would prefer a night-capable production chopper like the Russian Naval Aviation Ka-52K or the Russian Army/AF Mi-28NE "Night Hunter".

 

That does sound sensible, and in line with the DCS mantra of integrity in modeling what can be known. But they are also both crew of two. The Ka-50 would become basically legacy, and will have been the only single-pilot attack helicopter in the series. I think it's a fascinating platform considering how unique it is, and it seems like it will over time be antiquated in terms of the sim, unless it is "updated" to being combat-modern *for its era*. Obviously DCS is tackling multilple eras, so the idea of an antiquated platform doesn't really apply, but the Black Shark is sort of stuck in a kind of limbo being a prototype.

 

I can't argue with the logic of letting it just be what it is, but I also see huge potential in taking this unique aircraft further. Not that it matters what I want.

[Rogue Trooper]

For me it would simply require the addition of an RWR.

Just for a little more situational awareness.

Then she would be perfect!

[whitehot]

For me it would simply require the addition of an RWR.

Just for a little more situational awareness.

Then she would be perfect!

 

well, in fact it should have a MAWS (the inop switch on the upper left, center panel), at least, the switch is there !

[EngineerFalcon]

well, in fact it should have a MAWS (the inop switch on the upper left, center panel), at least, the switch is there !

 

The Laser Warning Receiver should warn you of incoming laser-guided missiles, no ? Or am I confusing two things.

[Raptor9]

The Laser Warning Receiver warns you of laser rangefinder and/or designating laser energy. That may or may not mean an ATGM of some sort is heading your way.

 

A Missile Warning System implies a sensor set specifically designed to detect incoming missiles themselves. Having said that, the nomenclature of the DCS "MAWS" in the Ka-50 could mean anything, due to translation errors or the Russians having a different naming convention for stuff. I'm just spitballing.

[dimitriov]

Nope, currently the LWS has two mods, rangefinder and guiding alert. Check your manual ;)

 

Then it doesn't always work, but for example, if you get fired a vikhr at you, you'll have both rangefinder and guiding alert.

 

On another side, it's perfectly possible to treat threats at night. Just have to adjust the Shkval contrast and luminosity, and the Nightvision intensity. Sure it's not able to lock on a target, but you don't need it to fire a vikhr. For the canon, yep it's harder if the target is moving.

 

There were so many versions of the Kamov, some even hadn't the Abris, and you can see on our version that it just was added, cause except with TGT points which use the Data-link system, you don't have any way to display WP from the PVI to the Abris, and there isn't any direct communication between both systems.

 

So FLIR would be a great addition, but isn't a necessity...

[Raptor9]

Nope, currently the LWS has two mods, rangefinder and guiding alert. Check your manual ;)

 

Then it doesn't always work, but for example, if you get fired a vikhr at you, you'll have both rangefinder and guiding alert.

 

You missed my point entirely.

 

First off, to address what you said, there are other threats out there that don't use laser beam-riding like the Vikhr system, but rather sem-active laser homing, like when an Apache fires a Hellfire at you. You're not wrong when you said the Ka-50's LWS has "Laser Rangefinding" and "Laser Guidance" warning lights, however a laser designator IS a type of guidance laser signal. It's simply semantics.

 

The point I was stating above is that the LWS does NOT warn of incoming missiles. It warns of LASER energy that is most likely guiding an ATGM missile at you.

 

An example of this distinction would be the A-10, which does have functioning radar and missile warning systems. If an SA-11 battery locks on to your aircraft, and starts tracking you, the RWR will warn you of the radar signal. However, when an actual missile launch occurs, the MWS sensors on the wings and tail of the A-10 detect the missile itself, and provide a separate warning. If through maneuvering or jamming the missile loses lock, that doesn't mean the radar warning in the cockpit goes away, because the radar is still tracking your aircraft.

 

Likewise if a laser beamrider falls outside the guidance cone of the source emitter, or a laser-homing missile loses sight of the laser spot on your aircraft, the emitter may still be painting your aircraft. Does that mean another missile is heading your way? Maybe, maybe not. The point is without a separate Missile Warning System looking for the missiles themselves, you have no way of knowing for sure that there is (or isn't) a missile in the air guiding on your aircraft. Further, such a system would be able to detect other munitions, such as MANPADS, which would be really handy, just like a FLIR set, or RWR.

 

Sorry to digress, just wanted to clarify the difference in what the LWS is really indicating, versus an MWS.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Raptor9

[King_Hrothgar]

ED should scrap all the WW2 stuff and give us DCS: Ka-52 + DCS: BS3 instead. Not going to happen of course, but one can dream. :)

 

In regards to the Ka-50, I'm not so sure it lacks a future. India has been eying it as have a few others I think. And Russia itself has used them in combat. Last I heard, the Russians were planning a half and half mix of Mi-28's and Ka-50/52's. I think they are leaning heavily towards the Ka-52, but I suspect some Ka-50's will be mixed in. Not that my opinion matters on the topic, but I've always though 3x Ka-50's + 1 Ka-52 is the ideal mix. The Ka-50's do the shooting while the Ka-52 acts as a commander, assigning targets via the data link.

[rcjonessnp175]

Yup ka50 is the bomb. Totally love the solo operator just like the a10c. All she needs is true day night capabilities and yes a rwr system. Ed has one in the a10c that isn't true to life don't see why the ka50 can't be loosely based on real life one in the Shark. I totally agree that the ww2 stuff should go away and full concentration and upgrading of modern combat systems should be the priority.

This company is about to debut one of the most epic maps in all of sim history. Would be nice to have a fresh face put on birds like the Ka50, and A10c

[GGTharos]

Ed has one in the a10c that isn't true to life

 

It has one what?

 

don't see why the ka50 can't be loosely based on real life one in the Shark.

 

Because the very real Ka-50 your in-game Ka-50 is based on does not have one.

 

If you want thermals on a heli, choose a different platform, when/if one appears. You won't be getting anything for the Ka-50 to the best of my knowledge (of course, everything is subject to change).

[King_Hrothgar]

The Ka-50N has LLTV but we don't have the Ka-50N, we have the vanilla Mk.I Ka-50. I think what this thread is really asking for is DCS: BS3 (with Ka-50N) or DCS: Ka-52. I'd buy either in a heartbeat having already bought BS1 and BS2.

[rcjonessnp175]

It has one what?

 

 

 

Because the very real Ka-50 your in-game Ka-50 is based on does not have one.

 

If you want thermals on a heli, choose a different platform, when/if one appears. You won't be getting anything for the Ka-50 to the best of my knowledge (of course, everything is subject to change).

 

RWR

[GGTharos]

Which part of the A-10C one do you find unrealistic?

 

The Ka-50 in question didn't have one anyway.

 

RWR

[xi]

Once DCS will support two players with the L-39, a Ka-52 module would seem reasonable. I guess it would be significantly cheaper to develop than an entirely new module and it would be an instant buy for a lot of Ka-50 veterans here.

[rcjonessnp175]

Yes the ka50 In question... As the other guy said would be rather beneficial to the community if an more advanced version of the ka50 was brought to dcs 2.0. As far as a10c it's a good simulation of an rwr. But it is not to the full spec of the system amongst many other aspects of the a10c. So with that being said with that logic ka50 could easily fall into the same boat.

Don't get my vibe wrong the sim is great we will always wish for more but certain things will never meet their real world counter part standards. Just trying to make a case for the ka50, which I'm rather surprised it being a Russian bird isn't the top of class as far as all this goes since its your companies homeland bird. Intent is not political it's intended to hopefully Spur some motivation to advance some great air platforms currently in the sim from the beginning.

[GGTharos]

As far as a10c it's a good simulation of an rwr. But it is not to the full spec of the system amongst many other aspects of the a10c.

 

Where's the full spec?

 

So with that being said with that logic ka50 could easily fall into the same boat.

 

No, it isn't the same boat. The A-10C has an RWR, the Ka-50 does not.

 

Just trying to make a case for the ka50, which I'm rather surprised it being a Russian bird isn't the top of class as far as all this goes since its your companies homeland bird. Intent is not political it's intended to hopefully Spur some motivation to advance some great air platforms currently in the sim from the beginning.

Russia all but rejected the Ka-50. A single-seat attack helicopter is basically a curiosity in the real world. Since it's there, it's being used, but it was never considered for mass production. To put it in other words, the Mi-24 was preferred, and the Mi-28 replaces both of them, along with the modern (not the Ka-50 era) Ka-52.

 

So, no, it has never been 'top of class'.

[rcjonessnp175]

It is well known in certain channels that the ka50 has the rwr capabilities. Which brings a point of the ka52, as much as us ka50 lovers would love to see that bird I would imagine it being rather unlikely due to the fact most systems are considered state secrets. With that being said its the same for the a10c, f18c, and so on. So one would assume, if a module would come it be in the same state as an a10c, ka50 and such with not all systems implemented into the sim for obvious reasons.

 

So to get back to the point, Rgr fully understand the mindset of why our ka50 is the way it is. But again with that being said it could be to the same level as an a10c in this sim compared to its various real world counterparts if the will was their. As certain things are left out but yet it's somewhat to the full capabilities of simulation in a certain point of view.

As an special operations fellow I can tell you with 100 percent certainty we would not work with a air platform that is not fully day and night capable in the west. Hence why I find it rather odd our Russian counter parts would...

It is what it is.

Hope someday the ka50 or other modern gu ship that is fully night and day capable come to this Digital Combat Simulator, as its a void that need plugging. Continue the good work