No Radar warning, no radar guidance, no radar SAMs?

[Groove]

Danger, nobody says that latest Ka-50 versions don't have RWR. What is being said here is that the Ka-50 modelled by ED had no RWR. I think asking the decision makers for NOT installing the RWR on that earlier versions won't be easy...

[predaeus]

Let's turn it around: Why is everyone else flying without an ejection seat?

[chromium]

http://warfare.ru/?catid=260&linkid=1631

 

an even more creditable site,

 

another time, no LWR (obviosly present). I believe that those site could be correct, but if even Jane's can be wrong... almost those sites can.

 

It seems clear that not all (few?) Ka-50s have no RWR system. The one in DCS hasn't. So, I believe we should try to plan mission avoiding at best radar risks.

[ZaltysZ]

http://warfare.ru/?catid=260&linkid=1631

 

an even more creditable site,

 

Why in page about Ka-50 there is photo (at the bottom) of Mi-28 in assembly stage? :huh:

[EvilBivol-1]

AFAIK, no Ka-50 version has ever had a RWR, including the "latest and greatest" Ka-52 prototypes.

 

danger, what you're seeing at Kamov's website are theoretical capabilities. Meaning, if a customer so desires, the helicopter can be fitted with a RWR, R-73, etc. However, these are not operational capabilities as deployed by the Russian military, which is what DCS simulates. In fact, neither of these systems have ever been actually tested on the Ka-50 as far as I know.

[danger]

well looking at all the research i have done , i will beg to differ and leave it at that. AND as there is no point using the hawk systems ect because there is no way of avoiding them, have to leave them out of any maps i build.

[danger]

Why in page about Ka-50 there is photo (at the bottom) of Mi-28 in assembly stage? :huh:

 

its the ka-50-2...........

[danger]

Danger, nobody says that latest Ka-50 versions don't have RWR. What is being said here is that the Ka-50 modelled by ED had no RWR. I think asking the decision makers for NOT installing the RWR on that earlier versions won't be easy...

 

IMHO maybe that should have been looked into when deciding to put RGM sites in the sim. obviously, the RWR would be needed if there are RGM sites

available. :smilewink:

[GGTharos]

You mean you can't fly outside of their WEZ one way or another?

 

As for the research you've done, that's nice - but the internet is not as reliable as some people think, and it's hard to sort out what's right and what isn't. You've already been given one example of such. The ET having a datalink is another.

 

You can beg to differ all you like, but the production/service Ka-50's still don't have RWR's ;)

 

well looking at all the research i have done , i will beg to differ and leave it at that. AND as there is no point using the hawk systems ect because there is no way of avoiding them, have to leave them out of any maps i build.

[ZaltysZ]

its the ka-50-2...........

 

Ka-50-2 is here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/ka-50-2_erdogan_pic1.jpg

 

Mi-28 is here: http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/5/1/1290153.jpg

 

The bottom photo in that page certainly is not Kamov.

[arneh]

its the ka-50-2...........

 

No it's not. It's Mi-28s. And you can see Mi-24s and Mi-26s in the background, which clearly indicates it's a Mil factory, not Kamov.

 

[danger]

:( and another thing, why is there a warning bar on my posts, i am only asking for reasons (without having to search through loads of postings), as to why something was not implemented, after spending hours researching the issue.

I really dont think i deserve the warnings and for people here to try and shoot me down in flames....................

[GGTharos]

What warnings? Sorry, I might have missed something - at least I don't see any moderator warnings on your account.

[DTWD]

:( and another thing, why is there a warning bar on my posts, i am only asking for reasons (without having to search through loads of postings), as to why something was not implemented, after spending hours researching the issue.

I really dont think i deserve the warnings and for people here to try and shoot me down in flames....................

 

Does it say 0%?

 

If so you don't have any.

[danger]

yeah, on my account there is some yellow bars next to a warning tag.

[159th_Viper]

yeah, on my account there is some yellow bars next to a warning tag.

 

As with us all......you just do not get to see it - only see yours and the attendant Warn % ;)

[msalama]

yeah, on my account there is some yellow bars next to a warning tag.

 

On mine too. Everyone has that. The thing is if the percentage is zero you're clean ;)

 

Relax, no-one's gonna ban you for disagreeing I'd think ;)

[msalama]

...but anyway, what I don't understand is why people are whining here. It's been stated many times already that this particular version of Ka-50 (i.e. the one ED chose to model) does NOT have a RWR, and thus we don't have it either. So what's the exact problem here?

[Guest]

they do have RWR,

 

http://www.pmulcahy.com/helicopters/russian_attack_helicopters.htm

 

I would like to point out that one of the links you posted above is simply a vehicle listing for a role playing game called "Twilight 2000" (go to the homepage http://www.pmulcahy.com/, go to "Helicopters" under "Twilight 2000 Vehicle Links", and then click "Russian Attack Helicopters").

 

Apparently, Twilight 2000 is a "Role playing game set in a fictional future, one where World war 3 began in the late 1990's and eventually slipped into a nuclear exchange changing society as we know it." In short, it is intentionally fictional. I would hardly say that particular source is a reliable way of determining the capabilities of the actual aircraft.

[chromium]

well looking at all the research i have done , i will beg to differ and leave it at that. AND as there is no point using the hawk systems ect because there is no way of avoiding them, have to leave them out of any maps i build.

 

First of all... danger I haven't anything against you (I aswer only at your posts since now :lol: ).

 

But I'm not a great pilot, and I accomplished a SEAD against an Hawk ASD at an airport... (Flied below 20 ft and masked behind house, bridge and power line until I got the radar down. Strange situation, I know)

[EtherealN]

To be honest, in my opinion an undefeatable SAM isn't a problem at all. (Nevermind that they aren't undefeatable, just rediculously difficult in some situations. :P )

 

Like what chromium described above, they make fertile ground for some really intense missions where you have to pass through a hot zone to carry out some mega-important objective.

 

Sorta like a stealth-shooter in the flight-sim genre. :D

[hoorah]

Those are both D-models.

 

Yeah i thought I saw sombody post that no apaches carry flares.

[Lobo_63]

"there is no point using the hawk systems ect because there is no way of avoiding them, have to leave them out of any maps i build."

 

You can fly right up to the HAWK missile battery and shoot it with your cannon. You just have to stay kinda low.

Edited February 7, 2009 by Lobo_63

[GGTharos]

... which is exactly why that HAWK would be organically supported by MANPADS and AAA.

[CE_Mikemonster]

Danger, have you read all 21 pages of this thread as well as the god-knows-how-many of the other replicated thread?