KA50 MWS

[ShuRugal]

All Ka-50s to my knowledge were testbeds up to a point. So no, I'm not miffed if the MWS pack and sensors are moved from chopper #1 to chopper #2, because installing and/or rewiring the data and power buses for the thingamajig must be straightforward anyway. But this only if said MWS system is known to ED and modelling it involves no guesswork.

 

This. I've never really liked the excuse of "well, the one in DCS is serial number 5, the feature you wanted was only available to serial number 6 and on!"

 

Why can't we have a late-production model that did have the fun toys?

[Isegrim]

DCS is like a box of Chocolates...

 

:smilewink:

[msalama]

the feature you wanted was only available to serial number 6 and on

 

But it's a thin line still. Everyone knows a FW-190 couldn't have had flares, whereas I'd imagine a line of Ka-50s could all have been fitted with MWS systems had the project lead so decided. But still, where's the exact line between realism and guesswork?

[Isegrim]

.... ahm ... Facts :happy:

[BitMaster]

the never ending discussion

 

fly lower and you dont need MWS in the Ka-50.

 

Reaper6 is a good example that flying low and slow will almost always cover you from enemy radar picking you up.

 

The Mi-8 also has no MWS...what about that Lady ?? She is heavily involved in BF, like the UH-1.

 

 

MWS for all !!!!

 

 

...you see where this leads to...nowhere

 

just my 2 cents

[msalama]

OK, so what if ED made a new deal with Kamov, modelled another Ka-50 that has an MWS system installed, and charged $49.99 for it at release then? Any takers?

 

As I said, I wouldn't object if they bolted an MWS system on our chopper, because installing a modular system into a type that has been shown to support it already is not _that_ big a deal. But since this is a no-no for some, then how about doing a brand-new Shark altogether? Would you guys cough up?

[msalama]

...aaaaand blz cut the crap guys. No-one ever wanted an MWS for everyone and I can live just fine without one myself. Still, there're Sharks fitted with it, so giving us one is hardly a cardinal sin either.

Edited November 2, 2016 by msalama

[msalama]

.... ahm ... Facts

 

And the fact still remains that the type supports it.

[GGTharos]

The fact remains that such a Ka-50 has never seen combat.

 

But hey, going along with your ideas, I've seen NASA and the USAF do some really cool stuff to F-15's, not to mention certain Raytheon proposals.

 

So I want 229's or 132's on that eagle, and AIM-54's and PAC-3's because some this has at least been demonstrated and it COULD happen ... right?

 

Here's a better idea, just IMHO: Ask for another chopper that has all this stuff and is in service instead.

The Ka-50 seen in combat is this 80's deal that was used for COIN in the 90's. That's it. There are no 'Ka-50 updates', there are only demonstrators.

[Blitz05]

So I keep seeing everyone quote production models and showing pictures of the systems. Does anyone have any documents or vetted links to show what each production number variants and what they were or were not equipped with? Also which versions were used in the Chechnyan conflicts? Besides all of that do people realize that even though there were early production test models that eventually as they get put into the frontline units, they eventually get updated to current specs and that even if one of the earlier ka-50s didnt have them they would now because it they are frontline aircraft.

[GGTharos]

The only Ka-50's out there are 'early production units'. There are very few of them, and very few of their number ever participated in combat. They were on the 'front line' once, and that was in Czecznya doing limited COIN. It is likely that will never, ever see combat again as no real army wants a single-pilot attack heli. Not because they hate single pilot aircraft, but because it is not practical.

 

They are not front-line aircraft. What they are is a rejected concept.

 

Besides all of that do people realize that even though there were early production test models that eventually as they get put into the frontline units, they eventually get updated to current specs and that even if one of the earlier ka-50s didnt have them they would now because it they are frontline aircraft.

[Blitz05]

Ok but do you have any information on what each early production unit has and do you have information on when they were no longer frontline units? All I am hearing from you is they are a rejected combat and few saw combat but no data and as far as I can tell your conjecture with no supporting facts. The only data I have found is they have been given to special operations units and have been adopted as front line units with full production on the way.

 

http://aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-50.php

[GGTharos]

Ok but do you have any information on what each early production unit has and do you have information on when they were no longer frontline units?

 

They were never front-line units. They were used once in COIN operations.

 

Don't give me the 'no supporting facts' line, you can look that up yourself VERY easily :)

 

All I am hearing from you is they are a rejected combat and few saw combat but no data and as far as I can tell your conjecture with no supporting facts. The only data I have found is they have been given to special operations units and have been adopted as front line units with full production on the way.

 

http://aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-50.php

 

There is no full production and there never will be. Russia bought the Mi-28 and Ka-52. The Ka-50 is a goner. Again, very easy to check on.

 

Even wikipedia has better information than the link you pulled up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50#Operational_history

 

As for equipment that was on specific airframes, ED has or had a much closer relationship than I ever will. You can either believe them, or pine for stuff that you yourself will likely never get useful information.

Edited November 2, 2016 by GGTharos

[Blitz05]

Well excuse me for giving a cited source that calls your opinion false. Once again until you provide information that proves my source wrong I will not take you seriously and consider anything you say as nothing more then conjecture. I have checked on the information and many of them if not all say they are still used in front line special operations support and have not supported any of your claims of a failed concept. If it is so easy for you to find information that proves me wrong by all means present it apparently my google foo is not as good as yours by the way you speak.

[Esac_mirmidon]

More than a rejected concept i like to think about the Ka-50 as an early concept EVOLVED in the better Ka-52.

 

They projected a concept, they tested the whole system ( coaxial design, weapons, flight handling, limitations, single crew, etc ) both on trials at Torzhok and in real deployment in Chechnya, and a list of flaws, lacks and development needed arise.

 

Then financiation stopped and the Arsenyev and whole project stops.

 

Years after the new Russian Federation retaked the project, redesigning it into a more better suited, evolved, better platform polishing the defects and increasing the potential, and of course two crew.

 

So for me they aren´t separated models, is an evolution of a project into a much better helicopter.

[GGTharos]

Let me do the reading for you then, from your own source:

 

CUSTOMERS: Four for Russian Army service trials, plus eight flying prototype and pre-series helicopters; all delivered. Further 10 ordered in 1997 budget and six in 1998, of which first three were due for delivery before end of 1998; initial helicopter eventually completed in June 1999, two more being due by mid-2000. By early 2003, it was still unclear if helicopters from the first batch of 10 had been delivered to Army Aviation. Two operational Ka-50s shown at Moscow Salon in August 2001 may have been repainted trials aircraft. One army helicopter lost in accident 17 June 1998; attributed to rotor clash.

 

No reports of further orders of sales.

[GGTharos]

Sorry but no. The concept is a single-seat attack helicopter, and it is rejected. The coaxial air-frame is nothing new.

 

More than a rejected concept i like to think about the Ka-50 as an early concept EVOLVED in the better Ka-52.

 

So for me they aren´t separated models, is an evolution of a project into a much better helicopter.

[Esac_mirmidon]

It´s obvious for me they are both linked.

 

It´s for me like the F-18C evolved into a F-18E, yes they are very different but it could be considered an evolution into a better plane.

 

Or the case from the Mig-29 into the Mig-35. Yes again they are very different but in a certain way linked as an evolution in something better but inspired in the previous model.

 

Even for the first Ka-52 produced at Arsenyev they used Ka-50 frames not completed so for me the link between them is obvious. Arsenyev didn´t design the Ka-52 from zero, they used the Ka-50 as the base for the new airframe.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Esac_mirmidon

[Fri13]

I wonder what "approximations" someone is talking about here? What is approximated in DCS? Everything is based on hard evidence found. If DCS was about approximations, we would have most modern jets... Someone who hasn`t thought through their false argument?

 

Really? EVERYTHING is based on HARD EVIDENCE?

 

I am sorry but that is naive thinking.

 

Based to _hard evidence_?

 

We do not have ANYTHING about IFF negotiations! Not a single HARD EVIDENCE!

We do not have ANYTHING about radars real capabilityes! ONLY a approximations!

We do not have ANYTHING about ECM, Flares or even Chaff capabilities! Only a approximations!

We do not have ANYTHING about datalinks! Only a approximations!

Not even a weather conditions effects to all that is there! Not even a simulated air dynamics about flying other aircraft mixed air!

Not even a FOB damage modeling in the airfields! Even birds strikes are just randomly generated lucky numbers when you are flying below specific altitude that is like calculated once a second ("there is 1% change that you get now bird strike and 50% change it is on either engine").

 

We do not even have anything about missile seeker heads, about algorithms for mid-course updates, attack profiles etc etc.

 

We do not even have data about structure stress limitations, all are just based "an industry standard" (not to THE STANDARD, just an standard) stress values without valid information what G-limits, what penetrations capabilities or stress levels etc.

There is so much "black box" theories and approximations that are nothing else than "educated guesses" at best.

 

The whole "DCS is about hard core realism with real factual simulation and hard facts" is just such a naive hope that it ain't even funny anymore.

 

Heck, even today we have an all seeing AI, we have trees that you can fly through or fire trough!

Caucasus map is most parts just a flat billiard table with some buildings here and there to give some cover but AI still sees you and aims at you!

It was not until NTTR came that brought colliable cactuses! A simple desert that has few trees here and there that are giving you some kind cover and concealment, if there would be so many!

 

DCS is so full of approximations that you can not unsee them once you learn to see how things works!

[Blitz05]

Let me do the reading for you then, from your own source:

 

 

 

No reports of further orders of sales.

 

 

So let me get this straight, you used a quote that supports my argument and proves yours wrong and you try to use that against me? You have yet to prove that the aircraft never went into production and was a failed concept. You even furthered my ealier point that the early prototypes were updated to current production models.

[GGTharos]

The concept never had anything to do with the airframe. Single-seat attack heli is the rejected concept.

 

That one machine evolved into another, ok, neat. The concept of a single-seat attack helicopter was left behind. :)

 

As for F-18C evolving into F-18E ... it's a replacement. The airframe, the avionics, everything about it is a replacement. It does the same mission etc, and it was made because the original hornet was essentially out of upgrade room.

I don't know enough about the MiG-35 to comment.

[Esac_mirmidon]

But i think you understand my point.

 

The Ka-52 has about 75% of the airframe in common with the Ka-50, so yes the single seat helicopter concept was rejected ( the reports from pilots deployed in Chechnya were very clear about the pilot workload ) but the design is an evolution.

 

The whole airframe, except the cockpit redesign, the coaxial rotor, blades, engines, etc are the same.

 

And about the real situation of the Ka-50 "fleet", let me help you Blitz.

 

ONLY 19-20 Ka-50 were ever built. From 010 to 028 or maybe a 029 existed. From them, 010 to 017 were test beds and preproduction airframes very different between them. 018 was the first production airframe and they followed 019 to 028. I wasn´t able to find any picture of frame 029.

 

So we have at best around 10 or maybe 11 production Ka-50 ONLY at the same time in mid-late 90´s, early 2000.

 

And unfortunately this is the situation of almost all Ka-50 frames excetp bort 027 and bort 028 that are actually in flight conditions.

 

Bort 26, Bort 23 dismantled, another unknown in the same situation and another two supossed air worthy. 2013

 

 

Bort 12 2016

 

 

Bort 18 2016

 

 

The famous Bort 25 stripped from all fancies ( MWS, etc ) 2015

 

 

Bort 24 2012

 

 

Bort 11 2011

 

 

So frontline deployment?

 

Not at all. I think there are two or three frames today in flight service and they are used in static displays, for flight parades at MAKS, Victory Day, etc. Maybe there are a pair of other frames complete in Torzhok that could be put on air if needed but today Russia has the Ka-52 and Mil Mi-28.

 

They don´t need anymore the Ka-50.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Esac_mirmidon

[Blitz05]

Thankyou for the info mirmidon sad to see the dismantling but it is understandable with the newer ka-52. But this begs the question what features differ from the one we have in the game, which from my understanding is a pre production model, and the actual production model. And why would they not model a production model for in game use? If they are retiring them then some info should be a little bit more attainable then previously when BS2 was initially released, so why no systems updates?

[zerO_crash]

@FRI13

 

No, that is your naïve thinking buddy. Everything modeled is indeed based on available info. Some things are S-I-M-P-L-I-F-I-E-D due to reasons (lack of documents going in depth). Every single full fledged DCS module is done this way. FC is a different discussion, and that was brought from a simulator game (where simulator was mostly the physics, not so much systems -> case in point, MiG-29 having same HDD as Su27, and not repeater-only that it should have and has now). Again, FC is not something you call for "fidelity" modules as a whole, when compared to full fledged. Why do we miss Maverick (laser guided)? -> Not open to public. Why was some few options not implemented in A10C MFCD? -> Not open to public. IF WE DON`T KNOW FOR SURE, WE DO NOT MODEL IT.

 

When mentioning things that are ambient-> birds, FOB, etc... do understand that it was limited to this during the old days, did you ever play LOMAC? (If no, then that`s where all this comes from)! Why do you think we are getting 2.0? Again, pointless argument... Same goes for current damage modelling, it simply is old. That is going to get fixed I'm sure. Back when LOMAC existed, well, there weren`t flat screens yet, did you expect a CPU then to calculate all this live? TTT -> military saying I`m sure many have heard "Things Take Time", so does updating.

 

What you mention about stress limits (again not going to comment on FC as these modules are brought and updated from a game), indeed there are known values here, but if you think a little, and notice that devs are NOT ALLOWED to share certain details (such as upcoming Eurofighter by VEAO) it should be self explanatory.

 

IFF is simplistic because we are in an environment with many modules from different periods. It`s a design choice devs have chosed, doesn`t make it unrealistic, but simplified indeed. We know nothing about how it`s made IRL, so let's make a simple version which works for everything. If we had every aircraft available today IRL you could go and ask for realistic IFF or dropping it, because then you get to fly actual real situations. Right now we are limited to Ka50 + A10C on the same side. Simple, no? (keyword -> simplified)

 

The imperfections (or rather mistakes) in AI are barely any reason to measures this down. If you want to simulate a true war, you might as well join a clan and ask someone to be a ground commander. Seriously, although a key element, you obviously have never seen what simulators look like in military. I guess you should be happy you haven`t, because then you wouldn`t be complaining about this AI. However bad it is, you always can do MP or join a clan for better realism simulation. (We have someone who sometimes does ground forces, works great, and is dynamic).

 

TL:DR, things that are not known, are not getting modelled, eventually simplified to the basic principle of their working. (Simplification might sometimes make it work funny -> Modern Fighter IFF WWII fighter, but that's a current limit we have to live with).

Edited November 2, 2016 by zerO_crash

[Fri13]

But i think you understand my point.

 

The Ka-52 has about 75% of the airframe in common with the Ka-50, so yes the single seat helicopter concept was rejected ( the reports from pilots deployed in Chechnya were very clear about the pilot workload ) but the design is an evolution.

 

The whole airframe, except the cockpit redesign, the coaxial rotor, blades, engines, etc are the same.

 

Can be same, but the problem with the helicopters is that change anything in them and you need to redesign all.

 

That is the problem with helicopters design that when you do any changes that alters the aerodynamics, center of gravity etc, and you need to redesign everything by checking all and calculating everything. Why changing a single bolt or shape in a rotor hub or rotor blades and all goes again through redesigns.

 

And KA-52 is so huge alteration to KA-50 that it isn't just "Okay, lets change a cockpit and call the day".

 

 

This is a good series about basics for helicopter aerodynamics and dynamics: