Real Black Shark 3

[Picure]

Has anyone here found any real life photos of the Black Shark 3?

[evanf117]

the Ka-50 never got Igla, but the wings are the exact same as the Ka-52's wings so in theory it could easily have them added, also Ka-50's did display with R-73 but i dont think they were ever fired from Ka-50's, here are some photos of BS3, No. 25, the production standard.
 early 25, no MWS or laser balls "balls of fate"

late No. 25 with MWS and laser balls "balls of fate"
No. 25 with balls of fate removed but still with MWS

another Ka-50, dont know what No., no balls of fate but has MWS, also i cant tell but i think this one has the single mirror
 

 Volks video, a good watch

[dimitriov]

Not the correct main computer protocol, 3 pylons wings were mounted on Ka-52 as a retrofit later in their service life, far after the last Ka-50 was sent to wreckyard. Useless to state that the computer to handle them is not the same than the 1985 PrPnk-800... Actually same goes for the entire cockpit. 

 

For the MWS, it's purely fictionnal, KABRIS is a finnish civilian computer, never ever was any MWS implemented in it. Actually the complete cockpit configuration is completely wtf for the new systems. 

 

This is president S : 

It's a complete MWS suit which replaces the older UV-26, ie if you have president S then you don't have the UV-26. There is no cohabitation of both systems, and it has its own computer and screen. Plus the real computer is as you can simply see on the photography full of functionnalities that you simply don't have, buttons are not on the panel for nothing... 

 

What I mean is that ok people may say (even if globally wrong) "It's a prototype anyway". Yes. Ok. But usually prototypes work with real systems not some voodoo magic...

 

ED should write on their module that it is now completely fictional or at least for the additions which actually may make it worth 10 bucks. Very nice 3D model though. 

 

Nicolas

Edited December 17, 2022 by dimitriov

[bmbpdk]

8 minutes ago, dimitriov said:

Not the correct main computer protocol, 3 pylons wings were mounted on Ka-52 as a retrofit later in their service life, far after the last Ka-50 was sent to wreckyard. Useless to state that the computer to handle them is not the same than the 1985 PrPnk-800... Actually same goes for the entire cockpit. 

 

For the MWS, it's purely fictionnal, KABRIS is a finnish civilian computer, never ever was any MWS implemented in it. Actually the complete cockpit configuration is completely wtf for the new systems. 

 

This is president S : 

It's a complete MWS suit which replaces the older UV-26, ie if you have president S then you don't have the UV-26. There is no cohabitation of both systems, and it has its own computer and screen. Plus the real computer is as you can simply see on the photography full of functionnalities that you simply don't have, buttons are not on the panel for nothing... 

 

What I mean is that ok people may say (even if globally wrong) "It's a prototype anyway". Yes. Ok. But usually prototypes work with real systems not some voodoo magic...

 

ED should write on their module that it is now completely fictional or at least for the additions which actually may make it worth 10 bucks. Very nice 3D model though. 

 

Nicolas

 

May i ask where you got all that information?
Books, documentary, website, combination?

I do not read or speak Russian, so it have to be in English.

[dimitriov]

Learn russian  

But basically the russian BS section of this forum is already full of very well documented informations. 

Found it back, the computer should be updated to this protocol : K-806 "Arg 52" with multiplex information exchange canal with protocol GOST 26765.52-87 ( MIL-STD-1553B)

Ye can't make that up lol...

 

[bmbpdk]

Just now, dimitriov said:

Learn russian  

I know some words and i can often spell me through many of the words, but i do not know what the words means, unless they are obvious close to latin or english or Danish.

I learned some Russian from the book series "Famous Russian Aircraft", DCS like numbers and SAM and missile launch (Go figure :-D), and i learned some Russian from the youtube channel "Combat Approved".

Othervise im totally green.

[dimitriov]

[bkthunder]

So the BS3 we have in DCS is purely fictional? Wasn't DCS supposed to be a sim and ED extremely precise about the specific day/month/year and minute of what is being modeled (e.g. the F-16?)

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by bkthunder

[NineLine]

3 minutes ago, bkthunder said:

So the BS3 we have in DCS is purely fictional? Wasn't DCS supposed to be a sim and ED extremely precise about the specific day/month/year and minute of what is being modeled (e.g. the F-16?)

 

 

I think you are about 10+ years too late to complain about the Black Shark validity. I would welcome more what-ifs and testbeds into DCS, as with the Black Shark it makes for a very enjoyable flight sim experience as well as gives us some aircraft where we might not be able to do them otherwise. 

[trevoC]

13 minutes ago, bkthunder said:

So the BS3 we have in DCS is purely fictional? Wasn't DCS supposed to be a sim and ED extremely precise about the specific day/month/year and minute of what is being modeled (e.g. the F-16?)

 

 

What makes you think the KA-50 is fictional?

Designed in the late 70's against the Mi-28 to become the frontline combat helicopter it won hands down in most respects and was operational (I think less than 20 were made though) and did serve in combat operations. It just never "took flight" so to speak until the 2 seat version ka-52 was made (from the body of the ka-50).

DCS version of the ka-50 would be a bit of a frakencopter, but the majority of the actual ka-50's were all different from each other as they were more of an ongoing testbed for most of their lives. Again, they did serve in combat operations though.

[NeedzWD40]

24 minutes ago, NineLine said:

I would welcome more what-ifs and testbeds into DCS, as with the Black Shark it makes for a very enjoyable flight sim experience as well as gives us some aircraft where we might not be able to do them otherwise.

I agree, more variety can be fun and enjoyable. Black Shark 3 allowing us to roll back to a non-fiction variation is icing on the cake.

However, I do have to ask what the bar is for fiction/what-if. Are we looking at the possibility of something like a F-23 done through theorizing what it might've been like had it been accepted into service? Or maybe we might see a variation of the Ka-52 through one of the envisioned prototypes? A Mi-28 or 28A prior to the N? I can think of a lot of modules that would be fun to have, along with fictional upgrades to existing ones, so it'd be nice to know where the bar is set so we can adjust our expectations accordingly.

Edited December 17, 2022 by NeedzWD40

[Bourrinopathe]

The relevance of that re-imagined version of the Ka-50 has been discussed a lot over the years (as mentioned by dimitriov and others), and while the current BS3 is certainly meant to be enjoyable, I think it represents a shift in how ED approaches simulation and realism.
At least, there's an option in the ME to disable the most debatable systems.

The ABRIS MWS page looks completely fictional (unless proved otherwise) - afaik the Ka-50 version is a military version of the existing civilian KABRIS, and it's doubtful a dedicated MWS code/wiring/etc. would have been planned and implemented as a retrofit.

Still… the 3D details and texturing look gorgeous. So as long as we can acknowledge that it's not entirely based on a real and complete airframe there's certainly plenty to enjoy (imho).

Edited December 17, 2022 by Bourrinopathe

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Having said that, I wish the President-S turrets were at least physically modelled as an option even without any functionality. Just for aesthetics alone.

pretty sure we will see them sooner or later.

[jubuttib]

44 minutes ago, okopanja said:

pretty sure we will see them sooner or later.

Shrug, they were originally supposed to come, until the whole BS3 project was thrown for a loop by Russian regulations changing. I wouldn't bet on anything they dropped from the original plans, even visual stuff, resurfacing anymore. Could be wrong, of course.

[okopanja]

4 minutes ago, jubuttib said:

Shrug, they were originally supposed to come, until the whole BS3 project was thrown for a loop by Russian regulations changing. I wouldn't bet on anything they dropped from the original plans, even visual stuff, resurfacing anymore. Could be wrong, of course.

Relax, if they intended to remove it they would remove the placeholders. Its a clear signal this is just waiting for some better times. Personally for the amount of money I spent on Ka-50 (first FF model, bought just to see what FF is), it provided me great fun.

Meanwhile, it would be nice to check why it takes 4 or more igla's to take out chinook in a supplied training mission, or 3 iglas to take out apache. IRL Strela-2M was good enough to knock out the engine of A-10 IRL, so really no reason not to put out of service helicopter with a single igla.

As for realism: its mixed bag, you will not find a single module that does not suffer from one or another accuracy. Perhaps we should call it creative artistic freedom: filling the missing gaps with plausible imagination.

And who knows, perhaps one day the Ka-50 III turns into Ka-52 dual seat module over night.

Helicopter gunships are at the sunset of their life. In reality they are being replaced by cheaper and more effective alternatives.

[Pede]

15 hours ago, okopanja said:

Meanwhile, it would be nice to check why it takes 4 or more igla's to take out chinook in a supplied training mission, or 3 iglas to take out apache. IRL Strela-2M was good enough to knock out the engine of A-10 IRL, so really no reason not to put out of service helicopter with a single igla. 

This is actually fairly accurate. Modern military helicopters are incredibly robust, much more so than fixed wing aircraft. Taking more than one manpad hit to shoot down is not uncommon, although I will say the helicopter damage models in general need work, the CH47 is difficult to shoot down, but not that difficult. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Pede

[Mr_Blastman]

20 hours ago, bkthunder said:

So the BS3 we have in DCS is purely fictional? Wasn't DCS supposed to be a sim and ED extremely precise about the specific day/month/year and minute of what is being modeled (e.g. the F-16?)

 

 

 I would be thrilled if they modeled and implemented Airwolf in full detail.  This stuff is fun. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Mr_Blastman

[jubuttib]

3 hours ago, Pede said:

This is actually fairly accurate. Modern military helicopters are incredibly robust, much more so than fixed wing aircraft. Taking more than one manpad hit to shoot down is not uncommon, although I will say the helicopter damage models in general need work, the CH47 is difficult to shoot down, but not that difficult.

There's been a fair bit of discussion about how hard it is to kill AI helicopters. Helicopters might be harder to kill than fighter jets, but we know from real life that often a single RPG-7 projectile is enough as well.

But be that as it may, the main problem really is that right now the AI helicopters can take a LOT more punishment than player operated ones. I've lost Mi-8s to infantry small arms fire in seconds, while I've also put 8 M151 rockets and a decent burst from the GAU-8 into an AI Mi-8 and it just flew away...

In Foothold enemy helicopters are in fact a constant problem, Ka-27s and Mi-8s servicing target areas and enemy helicopters making attack runs, and I've seen situations where a Hind eats multiple Patriot missiles without going down, Mi-8s take 3 Sidewinders and fly away (on fire all the way home, some 200 km away...), and Ka-27s take 3 A-A Vikhr shots and fly away. I've also seen friendly AH-1Zs and Gazelles absolutely shot to shreds with multiple missiles and AAA fire, and they refuse to go down.

AI helis, apart from maybe the Huey, can just take an enormous amount of punishment right now. Admittedly you do sometimes get lucky and down them in one hit, but you also see the opposite.

[Pede]

1 hour ago, jubuttib said:

There's been a fair bit of discussion about how hard it is to kill AI helicopters. Helicopters might be harder to kill than fighter jets, but we know from real life that often a single RPG-7 projectile is enough as well.

But be that as it may, the main problem really is that right now the AI helicopters can take a LOT more punishment than player operated ones. I've lost Mi-8s to infantry small arms fire in seconds, while I've also put 8 M151 rockets and a decent burst from the GAU-8 into an AI Mi-8 and it just flew away...

In Foothold enemy helicopters are in fact a constant problem, Ka-27s and Mi-8s servicing target areas and enemy helicopters making attack runs, and I've seen situations where a Hind eats multiple Patriot missiles without going down, Mi-8s take 3 Sidewinders and fly away (on fire all the way home, some 200 km away...), and Ka-27s take 3 A-A Vikhr shots and fly away. I've also seen friendly AH-1Zs and Gazelles absolutely shot to shreds with multiple missiles and AAA fire, and they refuse to go down.

AI helis, apart from maybe the Huey, can just take an enormous amount of punishment right now. Admittedly you do sometimes get lucky and down them in one hit, but you also see the opposite.

I mean if we're being fair, an RPG-7 is a shaped charge (generally), so that explosion is a cone in the direction of impact, compared to frag warheads where the explosive pushes out equally in all directions, also a direct impact puts the target much closer to the source of the explosion than a proximity fuzed weapon.

 

TLDR; getting hit with an anti-tank missile should do dramatically more damage than a MANPADS. 

 

That said there absolutely is an issue with AI helicopters (and occasionally even manned helicopters) not taking enough damage from weapons of all types. Especially heat seeking weapons that would in all likelihood target the engines which should result in a kill. 

Rotor wing damage models need a serious rework as a whole; even old coldwar era helos are very resistant to small arms fire and obviously no helicopter should be able to shrug off something like patriot. I've got quite a few notes when it comes to rotorwing aircraft in DCS and the damage models are pretty high up there on the list, right alongside the fact that DCS struggles to support realistic sized ground elements that are necessary when it comes to realism in rotorwing combat scenarios, although this might be addressed with multi-threading next year. 

[jubuttib]

1 hour ago, Pede said:

I mean if we're being fair, an RPG-7 is a shaped charge (generally), so that explosion is a cone in the direction of impact, compared to frag warheads where the explosive pushes out equally in all directions, also a direct impact puts the target much closer to the source of the explosion than a proximity fuzed weapon.

True, though the shaped charge also needs to hit something that can be destroyed with a stream of molten metal like that, the cargo space of a Chinook might not be the greatest for that.

Also from what I read, terrorists had gotten somewhat good at employing the self-destruct mechanism on the RPG-7 warheads, and making them explode right next to helicopters.

Quote

Helicopter hunting

While the RPG was designed to kill tanks and other combat vehicles, it has brought down a number of helicopters as well. During the fighting in Mogadishu, Somalia in October 1994, the two US Army Blackhawk helicopters shot down were by the RPG. In Afghanistan, the Mujahideen found that the best anti-helicopter tactics were anti-helicopter ambushes. The first variant was to identify likely landing zones and mine them. Then the Mujahideen would position machine guns and RPGs around the landing zone. As the helicopter landed, massed RPG and machine gun fire would tear into the aircraft.(14)

If the Mujahideen could not lure helicopters into an ambush kill zone, the RPG could still engage helicopters. The Mujahideen found that a frontal shot at a range of 100 meters was optimum against an approaching helicopter.(15) As before, the more RPGs firing simultaneously, the better chance of a hit and escape from an avenging wingman.(16)

Should the helicopters be flying further away, it was better to wait until the helicopter was 700-800 meters away and then fire, trying to catch the helicopter with the explosion of the round's self-destruction at 920 meters distance. Chances of hitting a helicopter at this range by the self-destruct mechanism were very limited, but they served to discourage reconnaissance helicopters and air assault landings, particularly if a SA-7 Strela or a Stinger shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile was also firing.(17)

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1998/infantry-rpg.htm

And they do have plenty of HE warheads available too, AFAIK.

[NineLine]

Guys, please stay on topic. If you have a different topic to discuss, open a new thread. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

For what it's worth, I'd view this as the closest we'll get to the Ka-52 for the foreseeable future.

[Beirut]

I'm fine with the BS3 being a little bit fictional. It all seems to fit. And the Igla missiles definitely have a Russian flair to them.

 

I remain enamored with my Ka-50.

[dimitriov]

On 12/18/2022 at 1:01 AM, okopanja said:

 

For me the problem is not how fictional it can be.

 

It is fictional. All the BS3 addition outside from new INU is fictional.

 

So get it written in your product description instead of making thinking that it is like the other modules. I don't know if there are some educated guesses on other modules though I never heard about them, but I don't think any module has ever been sold with content being 90% pure invention.

 

But here lies the result of BS3 : Now we don't know. Perhaps after all this way of working is or will be common in the future...

Edited December 19, 2022 by dimitriov

[nessuno0505]

If a bit of fiction / imagination is allowed, then why we can't have a modern su-27 or mig-29 variant done using this imagination?

Just to be clear: I've bought BS3. That's because I like the concept of upgrading an older module up to the current standards for a small price. I've bought the a-10c II and I'm ready to buy a future mig-15 / f-86 upgrade (even with older variants and not only newer stuff, the korea war ones would be great for example), a renewed f-5 tiger, mi-8 or huey. But I'd prefer to have other real variants rather than fictional ones. Nevertheless, if it must be fictional, then why not some russian fighter? You could guess or imagine those things you can't accurately model for legal reasons. It's the same choice done for BS3, isn't it? You can't do a ka-52, so you've done a modernized fictional ka-50. If this is the only way you can do russian stuff I'm fine. But then again, why no modern russian fighter is possible?