Partial Vikhr/rocket loading options?

[Raptor9]

With the Black Shark 3 project in an un-certain state, if they do finish the update work on the exterior model and such, it would be nice to have a few more options over our existing weapon loads.  Having the ability to fine tune your power-to-weight ratio, especially in high altitude areas on hot days, allows aircrews to properly balance fuel and weapons weight with how much power margin they will need in the current conditions.

 

Specifically, it would be nice to choose lighter Vikhr or rocket loads, similar to loading only two Mavericks on a triple-rail launcher on the A-10 or F-16.

My proposed options:
1) With each APU-6 launcher carrying 6 Vikhr missiles, additional options to carry only 4 or 2 missiles per launcher

2) With the B-8V20A rocket pods carrying 20 S-8 rockets each, additional options to carry either 10 rockets of the selected type, or 5 rockets of the selected type. (This would keep the quantities in line with the associated salvo settings on the weapons panel)

 

Even with these additional options, compounded by the various rocket warhead options, the available Rocket munitions list per pylon in the Rearm/Refuel menu would still be much shorter than other modules in DCS, so there shouldn't be any menu limitations to these additional options.

 

The only additional work I see for graphical design, is whether the partial Vikhr loadouts would need special APU-6 3D models with only a few Vikhr launch tubes mounted, or simply having empty Vikhr tubes present on the unloaded slots.

 

EDIT: Since I must be blind, I failed to notice a similar suggestion in the following thread: 

 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Raptor9

[PickleMonster]

There's a historical precedent for this too, which Volk has alluded to.  The two KA-50's that actually saw combat in Chechnaya flew with reduced Vikhr loads.

[Dr_Arrow]

On 9/28/2021 at 1:05 AM, PickleMonster said:

There's a historical precedent for this too, which Volk has alluded to.  The two KA-50's that actually saw combat in Chechnaya flew with reduced Vikhr loads.

Yes, I think it would be very good for the Shark. Having 12 VIKHRs is overkill, especially for high mountain flying or less intensive COIN engagements where you have only a few dangerous/targets (AAA positions or such) as others can be engaged by unguided rockets or cannon. The report from Chechnya also mentioned that VIKHRs were used only on high value targets.

[Avimimus]

Also this thread (where I gather some evidence):

 

[Avimimus]

I thought I'd quote this post as well - which quantifies the benefits:

On 11/4/2022 at 7:06 PM, Avimimus said:

Each of the launch tubes is attached separately - so it is possible to carry four or two missiles per rack (or even one)

Carrying only two missiles per rack saves 472kg (1040lb) of weight! This translates into greater agility and greater range. So it should be unsurprising that pilots not expecting many armoured targets - but still wanting a couple of anti-tank missiles in case they are needed - would fly with the racks largely empty.

Operationally we've generally seen Ka-52 carrying two or four missiles per rack, and we've also seen several photos of the Ka-50 with only two missiles per rack. There are a few photos of them flying with full racks - but it is rare.

The major exception is the Ka-52 which is often seen flying with a full rack - but carrying only one rack. This way it can carry a V-80 (S-8/80mm rocket pod) on the other side and two drop tanks (so 20xS-8 rockets and six 9K121 Vikhr and two drop tanks). However, the WCS on the Ka-50 (as modelled) doesn't permit asymmetric loadouts.

So the most realistic modelling of the Kamov would let us carry partially empty racks and/or asymmetric loadouts (with missiles and rockets on opposite sides). We now have plenty of photographic evidence to back this up.

P.S. The AH-64 Apache module by DCS models a similar capability - with options for one, two, three, or four hellfires per rack! Because American often fly with partially loaded racks too... it saves so much weight to do so.