BS3 still happening?

[martinistripes]

For those that enjoy realism, it won't be cool to get shot down by a six pylon Ka-50 in multiplayer. 

 

I'll skip this one. Would sure like the upgraded cockpit, external model and MWS though.

[Stratos]

Don't like it, don't buy it. Ka-50 was made of prototypes, even If some of them saw limited operational use ( more field trials than anything) I cannot see the problem here. It happened before, MiG-21, F-16...

[3WA]

59 minutes ago, ResonantCard1 said:

Yay, the BS3 is going to be a 100% fantasy module! I wonder why ED doesn't give it a radar, FLIR, Hellfires, Amraams, JDAMs, JSOWs, CBU-107s, Meteors, AIM-260s, SLAM-ER, Triple Mavs in every station and HARMs everywhere. Now that it's basically fantasy why not go the extra mile? People would love to get the SUPER CAPABLE KILLING MACHINE that the BS3 can become. 

 

So yeah hard pass on this, good job ED

The problem is, without FLIR, and a few other things the Ka-52 has, the Apache is still going to eat it alive.  Igla's will make a little difference, but those are mainly for defense against low flying jets ( because the shkval is so BAD ).

Edited April 30, 2021 by 3WA

[Quetzalkoatl]

Would be good if 6 pylons on BS3 were optional.
For those who feel the need to have proper Ka-50 without any fictional stuff - 4 pylon wings should be there too...

And please don't tell me to fly BS2 if I want only 4 pylons - because afaik it's not getting new 3D external model which is one of the most important stuff of this whole upgrade.
When we look at previous BS3 pictures we can see that 4 pylon wings were already done, hopefully they did not end in a bin and still can be implemented.

 

Pylon number could be changed via ground crew commands (e.g. like in JF-17 refueling probe) and mission editor.

[3WA]

What we really need is a Ka-52.  But you can already see it looks like they ditched the President-S, so I don't see any more modern aircraft coming from Russia.

 

Time to join the Yanks!

Edited April 30, 2021 by 3WA

[S.E.Bulba]

27 минут назад, Stratos сказал:

Ka-50 was made of prototypes, even If some of them saw limited operational use ( more field trials than anything) I cannot see the problem here.

I see problems… for example, how a real SUO-800M FCS could control 6 pylons? Unfortunately, ED developers cannot clearly answer this question. 
 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Я вижу проблемы… например, каким образом реальная система управления оружием СУО-800М могла управлять 6 пилонами? К сожалению, разработчики ED не могут внятно ответить на этот вопрос. 

 

[Sh4rk]

It's an old discussion.

Refer to this old post 

Note that in the picture, it's a Ka-50 - the 52 has a different window configuration and snout, being more rounded, not square.

 

 

Also the Ka50 being but a prototype and the testbed for the production Ka52s, it isn't totally untrue that it could carry Iglas.

There are even cockpit switches for them in the old Ka-50!

 

Finally, ED probably knows more than we can only find on the Internet and magazines about the Ka.

If you want to know more about what we've been missing, just look for "no function" in the BS3 manual.

 

[S.E.Bulba]

1 час назад, Sh4rk сказал:

… it isn't totally untrue that it could carry Iglas.

There are even cockpit switches for them in the old Ka-50!

Why did you decide that these are switches "for Iglas"? Didn't you think that this could be the emergency jettison button for R-73 missiles from the APU-62-1M launch units, which were supposed to be hung on pylons 1 and 4? 

Скрытый текст

DCS BS2 Flight Manual RU

Цитата

4. Кнопка управления аварийным пуском изделия «72» (не используется).

 

Цитата

РАКЕТА К-73 (Р-73, изделие 72)

 

 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Почему Вы решили, что это переключатели «для "Игл"»? Вы не думали, что это может быть кнопка аварийного сброса ракет Р-73 с авиационных пусковых устройств АПУ-62-1М, которые предполагалось подвешивать на 1 и 4 пилоны? 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by S.E.Bulba
UPD.

[Arikaj]

13 hours ago, unlikely_spider said:

Is it not a full fidelity module now? I am familiar with the Huey and Hip but not really the Ka-50. But I hopped into it for a look and it looks pretty nice - my understanding is that it recently had a texture refresh.

But they're updating it once again in the near future? It would be nice to have this attention paid to the F-86 and F-5 as well, but it seems to me that the existing Ka-50 already looks pretty good inside. But again, I'm not intimately familiar with the functionality.

Not all switches are clickable and not all systems might be modeled properly like the Shkval. 

 

Nevertheless it is still fun and all the basic functions are there. But some of us are wanting to fly as realistically as it can get to real life and that takes all systems to be working properly. 

 

But as I can see (not read through all of it yet) we are getting a fantasy chopper.

 

[3WA]

It always was a fantasy chopper.  I'm sure there is stuff in it that is still classified to this day.  It was a testbed.  And many varieties were made.  They all led to the Ka-52 being built.

 

So whatever they do with it, it doesn't matter.  Especially if the Ka-52 can carry it.  In the end, the Ka-50 was supposed to be the "hand" of the Ka-52.  It would do all the strikes and dirty work, and the Ka-52 would be a command unit, directing the Ka-50s.

[AlphaOneSix]

15 hours ago, Mike_Romeo said:

and 3 Iglas per pylon (like on the KA-52)

That launcher has two Iglas. The thing in the middle is the coolant, I believe.

[Fri13]

13 minutes ago, 3WA said:

It always was a fantasy chopper.  I'm sure there is stuff in it that is still classified to this day.  It was a testbed.  And many varieties were made.  They all led to the Ka-52 being built.

 

It wasn't fantasy. It was modeled after #25 that was in Chechnya and then in combat trials after that. Those few in the war received KABRIS just before entering there.

They were in first production standard at the time and after feedback the second production standard was drafter from that experience and the combat trials. Around there is the time when Our #25 has ceased to exist as is, because it likely got upgraded to different capabilities with the #18. 

 

KA-52 was not an upgrade to KA-50, it was all the time the planned version from KA-50 to be the flight leader version. (ie. 3x KA-50 + 1x KA-52).

 

The KA-52 project was behind the schedule as it had no funding. Even Kamov was paying the KA-50 units to be upgraded for the war. As they were so sure government buys it as deal was, so it was investment to get it shown.

 

So it can be said that KA-50 BS3 is made well based to educated guess, but problem is that our cockpit is old steam cauged and TV monitor, not the glass cockpit one. But it would be better keep what is known than try to guess what is on all those displays etc. As third pylon doesn't really add anything hard to guess when it is available only for two IGLA launchers on both wings, and DCS has already offered the collective box with function to select them.

 

13 minutes ago, 3WA said:

So whatever they do with it, it doesn't matter.  Especially if the Ka-52 can carry it. 

 

First KA-52's didn't have third pylon. They were mostly same as KA-50 but with a radar screen for commander and new radios.

So just enlarged nose section, added another person in and a radar.

 

Later on the third pylon appears to KA-52 wing, when it cockpit was fully modernized with glass cockpit. Same time KA-50 had a glass cockpit se as the KA-52 but just for one pilot.

 

As the KA-50 difference was the nose section to just behind the cockpit, they shared rest of the body. Same wing attachments and all.

So it is safe to assume that if KA-50 would have been pursued forward and get maintained as KA-52 project that it too would have received the same wing as KA-52 got.

 

This alone just to keep the strike group service and parts simpler. If you can share the wings, engines, landing gear, blades and all as much as possible from MFCD''s to individual parts etc, then just better.

Fewer individual parts, better. Like radar for KA-52 while both get same optical targeting system.  

 

13 minutes ago, 3WA said:

In the end, the Ka-50 was supposed to be the "hand" of the Ka-52.  It would do all the strikes and dirty work, and the Ka-52 would be a command unit, directing the Ka-50s.

 

Exactly, you did know it.

Designate targets for sharks and the pack would swarm the enemy from multiple directions and cooperated attacks etc. 

 

And that pack would be moved togther, serviced together and maintained together. Logistics should be as streamlined as possible for good war mahcine.

 

 

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, AlphaOneSix said:

That launcher has two Iglas. The thing in the middle is the coolant, I believe.

Yeah, I made that mistake as well when only photos about it was from front. But they has just two missile tubes and the launcher is the middle part. The beauty is that you can have multiple launchers stacked together, so you can have 2/4 missiles joined together.

 

The battery should be the faucet looking part below the missile tube. So each missile has own battery.

 

But if you can wire the launcher to helicopters, you could get infinite power without chemical battery and so on nice operational time.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Fri13

[XPACT]

Hope that those who have problem with three pylons on Ka-50 also didn't support quad mavericks on F-16 or other fantasy loadouts that are sadly beginning to be a standard around here. Basically recipe for fantasy loadout: just cry on the forums out loud, show some testing photos when weapons were carried for aerodynamic and maneuverability evaluation but they were never fired or even wired for. 

 

I am just asking for same standards everywhere, I think we are at the point in time where we need "Allow only realistic loadouts" in the mission editor. 

[AlphaOneSix]

38 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

But if you can wire the launcher to helicopters, you could get infinite power without chemical battery and so on nice operational time.

But you don't have infinite coolant. I'm interested to see how this is handled in-game.

[Volk.]

@Fri13 some small corrections/additions.

 

You mention 'our' #25. Not sure if you mean 'our present BS2', but the current BS2 one is modeled off yellow #24 that also went to Chechnya and flew there a bit more as it didn't clip it's own rotor with an S-80 fragment. #24 is the only one that received funding to upgrade the Shkval/Prichal laser to also allow designation for Su-24s etc. So by extension it should be the only one that can self-laze Kh-25s or buddy laze Kh-25s for other Sharks. Inherently we should lose the designation part if we were to receive any other Shark with any other features. Not a big loss though.

#25 went on to test the Missile Warning System and DIRCMs. MWS performed well enough in 2009, but DIRCM only got approved as working well enough in 2011 to then get deployed on Ka-52s etc.

 

You're right that Ka-52s didn't initially have a third pylon. Also probably from adding then ~500kg for the 2nd seater and still using the same engines. Not sure if the third pylon was added at the same time as upgrading the engines. I don't know about full glass, but the -52 prototypes seemed to have more MFD type displays from the start than the Ka-50.

Only the final Night Attack shark conversion Ka-50Sh had a full glass cockpit renovation.

 

Ka-52 wasn't fully on the cards from the start. They knew they had to make a 2 seater trainer, but it wasn't conceived as it is now. They wanted a Kiowa-equivalent Ka-60 - which Kamov conceived as a 4 tonne thing, MoD or such wanted 6.5 tonnes, it ran into issues finding the right engine and was eventually budget cut. Then they made plans to convert Ka-29s with the Rubicon system and FLIR sensors. One Ka-29 was converted thus and escorted #24 and #25 to Chechnya. The group did well, but they found the Ka-29 couldn't quite keep up with the lighter streamlined Ka-50 (also revamped rotor system). Between the MoD simply losing interest in the single seater concept (successful deployment, but the concept was still probably just too alien), and choosing to replace that Ka-29 scout with a better Black Shark, the Ka-52 was adapted from the Ka-50 and then just eventually fully supplanted it.

Once the Ka-52 showed an ok mockup it got all the scant funding while the Ka-50 got zero.

 

What they've shown thus far of the exterior of is a Black Shark with MWS, so yellow #25, but DIRCM removed - eh, think I'm fine with that. Can't comment on anything I've seen about it having working IGLAs or a third pylon.

 

 

@Mike_Romeo Erdogan Ka-50-2 was only a mockup - not a functional airframe. It was also based on the then-prototype Ka-52, so it's not strictly speaking a 6-pylon Ka-50. Also it had a bunch of other weird mods in addition to the tandem layout, including making the gun store on the side and then flip down to become a turret, think the turret became 20mm as well. Think it was also going to have avionics from partners etc. - but somewhat removed from a Ka-50 is what I'm trying to say.

Edited May 1, 2021 by Volk.

[Fri13]

15 minutes ago, XPACT said:

 am just asking for same standards everywhere, I think we are at the point in time where we need "Allow only realistic loadouts" in the mission editor. 

 

"Realistic loadouts" are mostly political loadouts. They get changed by politics and not by technical facts.

 

That is why modules should support technically capable weapons and features, and then leave the politics out of the game and let mission designers to decide what are loadouts.

 

If something is wanted by module developers, then make the official loadouts with political loadouts and time periods.

 

Otherwise DCS should be removed from whole mission editor and only sell a official missions and campaigns that are all based to real history events and scenarios.

And that point people would get angry.

 

Like Apache has the wiring and lugs and all capabilities to carry Stingers, but for political reasons they are not allowed to have those loadouts and so on no training. USMC instead had a training programs for those and they simply loaded them for Army pilots for the training period.

 

Like how many wants that Litening and ATFLIR to be removed from hornet? It didn't have it officially in 2005 because all went to D models or Super Hornets. Technically compatible and usable but official loadouts were without as Nitehawk pod was the used one at USMC and USN service in C hornets.

 

The KA-50 was going through the standardization at the end of 2000 but never pushed to large scale mass production.

We can't get final technical capabilities like a President-S because military secrets etc.

I am happy that we could even get missing systems modeled and really hoping to get proper contrast detection system for Vikhr use.

 

 

[Volk.]

6 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

Like Apache has the wiring and lugs and all capabilities to carry Stingers

Didn't have wiring in the US ones. Easy to do, but they just didn't. Brittish Apaches I think mighta been the only ones that did that.

 

Maybe with the Apache also using a contrast lock system the code the base tech to update the Shkval. No idea which system locks better IRL though. Might all be flakey.

[Fri13]

8 minutes ago, AlphaOneSix said:

But you don't have infinite coolant. I'm interested to see how this is handled in-game.

 

If the coolant bottle is in the central large tube, then it likely could have far more coolant than the chemical battery provides for 30-60 seconds normally. 

 

I could think that we get a fixed reticle that is IGLA boresight by just switching to A/A mode and then you get tone when you have a lock. I wouldn't even wait to see a artificial count down on the HUD for estimated power.

 

I see that you would have as for now the inner/outter selection as nothing changes there. And then just get the A/A mode select the IGLA as nothing else can be there on third pylon (I hope so).

 

 

 

[XPACT]

Of course date/time based weapons should be a thing that's great from mission creator point of view. What I am saying if something isn't wired in simulated version/model of aircraft you shouldn't be able to use the weapon in DCS also, carry it yes, jettison yeah but use it like a weapon big no. You can also find images with MiG-29s carrying four R-27Rs but ones on the outer pylons can't be fired, everyone knows that. If DCS wants to be another arcade type game sure go that way but if they actually want to keep some standard and stand by the words how the product is described decisions like that should be revised.

Edited May 1, 2021 by XPACT

[Fri13]

2 minutes ago, Volk. said:

Didn't have wiring in the US ones. Easy to do, but they just didn't. Brittish Apaches I think mighta been the only ones that did that.

 

British and japanese at least opted to use stingers there.

 

2 minutes ago, Volk. said:

Maybe with the Apache also using a contrast lock system the code the base tech to update the Shkval. No idea which system locks better IRL though. Might all be flakey.

 

Looking the gulf war Apache videos, the contrasr locking was little odd, liked to show random parts to be tracked etc. 

 

But all would benefit from proper contrast lock system (Su-25T, Litening, ATFLIR, Harrier DMT, Apache etc) than just KA-50. It is likely part of FLIR upgrade that is coming from ED.

 

[Fri13]

8 minutes ago, XPACT said:

Of course date/time based weapons should be a thing that's great from mission creator point of view. What I am saying if something isn't wired in simulated version/model of aircraft you shouldn't be able to use the weapon in DCS also, carry it yes, jettison yeah but use it like a weapon big no. You can also find images with MiG-29s carrying four R-27Rs but ones on the outer pylons can't be fired, everyone knows that. If DCS wants to be another arcade type game sure go that way but if they actually want to keep some standard and stand by the words how the product is described decisions like that should be revised.

 

That is the technical limitation.

If it can not be launched, then it can't be.

If it doesn't fit in, then it doesn't.

If it can't be powered, then it can't.

 

But leave all politics out and let the mission designers use all compatible weapons and systems as they see to fit, even outside their timeline if they so want by disabling the time filter (like use AIM-120C in 1991 mission) or if they want they can give 9999 of missiles in warehouse even if in reality just few dozens were produced at the time.

 

This way mission designers can go to make most accurate historic events, or build plausible modern scenarios, or even go full for story mode and make a MiG-15's flying against modern enemies a la "Museum Relic".

 

I hope with KA-50 we get to choose the wing type by some manner or stick to BS2 like version (with fixed systems etc) without really requiring to use BS3 to get Shkval working properly.

 

 

[XPACT]

I agree with that, it's after all a game and some like the idea of doing stuff that wasn't possible at the time or even carry stuff that wasn't possible. I am not against it if that is the way you want to play, I couldn't care less about something I won't encounter in my gameplay.

I am just telling if that is the case where development of modules is going we need additional tools to easily filter out what we don't want in our missions.

I am sure there is plenty of us who want fully realistic timeline and also only what was really utilized IRL loadouts wise in those modules that we intend to fly or fly against

[S.E.Bulba]

4 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

So it is safe to assume that if KA-50 would have been pursued forward and get maintained as KA-52 project that it too would have received the same wing as KA-52 got.

The Ka-50 would probably have received a wing with 6 pylons together with a 'glass cockpit'… but only after it would have installed a new digital K-806 aircraft targeting and navigation system with a 4th generation onboard computers and an interface of the MIL-STD-1553B standard. This is exactly what was done on the Ka-52, having previously tested the K-806 PrPNK prototype on the Ka-50 #18, instead of the old analog-digital K-041 PrPNK with onboard computers of the 2nd and 3rd generations.

Скрытый текст

 

 

 

3 часа назад, Fri13 сказал:

The battery should be the faucet looking part below the missile tube. So each missile has own battery.

4 battery and coolant units (BCU) are located in the back – 2 for each missile (2 × 30 sec. = 60 sec.).

Скрытый текст

 

 

Скрытый текст

Original in Russian

 

Ка-50 возможно и получили бы крыло с 6 пилонами вместе со «стеклянной кабиной»… но только после того, как на него установили бы новый цифровой прицельно-пилотажный навигационный комплекс К-806 с БЦВМ 4 поколения и интерфейсом стандарта MIL-STD-1553B. Именно это сделали на Ка-52, предварительно испытав прототип ПрПНК К-806 на Ка-50 №18, взамен старого аналого-цифрового ПрПНК К-041 с БЦВМ 2 и 3 поколений.

4 наземных источников питания (НИП) находятся сзади – по 2 для каждой ракеты (2 × 30 сек. = 60 сек.).

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by S.E.Bulba
UPD.

[Fri13]

1 hour ago, S.E.Bulba said:

The Ka-50 would probably have received a wing with 6 pylons together with a 'glass cockpit'… but only after it would have installed a new digital K-806 aircraft targeting and navigation system with a 4th generation onboard computers and an interface of the MIL-STD-1553B standard. This is exactly what was done on the Ka-52, having previously tested the K-806 PrPNK prototype on the Ka-50 #18, instead of the old analog-digital K-041 PrPNK with onboard computers of the 2nd and 3rd generations.

 

Yep, gone thought the "glass cockpit" modernisation to become "one pilot KA-52".

 

Why does Russia use US defense department standards?

 

1 hour ago, S.E.Bulba said:

 

4 battery and coolant units (BCU) are located in the back – 2 for each missile (2 × 30 sec. = 60 sec.).

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Original in Russian

 

Ка-50 возможно и получили бы крыло с 6 пилонами вместе со «стеклянной кабиной»… но только после того, как на него установили бы новый цифровой прицельно-пилотажный навигационный комплекс К-806 с БЦВМ 4 поколения и интерфейсом стандарта MIL-STD-1553B. Именно это сделали на Ка-52, предварительно испытав прототип ПрПНК К-806 на Ка-50 №18, взамен старого аналого-цифрового ПрПНК К-041 с БЦВМ 2 и 3 поколений.

4 наземных источников питания (НИП) находятся сзади – по 2 для каждой ракеты (2 × 30 сек. = 60 сек.).

 

 

 

The BCU are at the rear but are routed through faucets to the launcher itself.

 

It isn't possible to unmount the missile, launcher and then insert the BCU to it for normal shoulder launched operation?