announced DCS MiG-29A

There is absolutely no reason to assume that ED or (anyone else for that matter) is ever going to do a full scale GCI/AWACS overhaul. In addition to the thousands of things that are already "planned" (and have been for years) we already have planes in the game (the Mig-21 is the obvious full DCS module one) that absolutely require it, and have required it for years to become fully functional yet no one has done anything about it.

Even if they at some point decide to do a full fidelity module like the Mig29, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will ship with anything close to resembling anything like realistic (or even simplistic) GCI.

Even though single-player is touted as being the number one draw in DCS, the truth is that this is not really true for most planes in DCS that require anything more than basic functionalities which can be scripted. If you want GCI with your plane (regardless of NATO or Redfor) you need to fly it online.

Lurker said:

There is absolutely no reason to assume that ED or (anyone else for that matter) is ever going to do a full scale GCI/AWACS overhaul. In addition to the thousands of things that are already "planned" (and have been for years) we already have planes in the game (the Mig-21 is the obvious full DCS module one) that absolutely require it, and have required it for years to become fully functional yet no one has done anything about it.

 

Even if they at some point decide to do a full fidelity module like the Mig29, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will ship with anything close to resembling anything like realistic (or even simplistic) GCI.

 

Even though single-player is touted as being the number one draw in DCS, the truth is that this is wasted on most planes in DCS that require anything more than basic functionalities which can be scripted. If you want GCI with your plane (regardless of NATO or Redfor) you need to fly it online.

To be honest, when we only have 4 long-range/EW RADARs, of which 1 is non-functional eye-candy with no control over placement, another is the commonly associated acquisition RADAR of the SA-3 system, and the other 2 are 80s RADARs in dire need of a major graphical overhaul, I'm not surprised the GCI element has been neglected.

I mean, even our current SAMs are missing battery components...

Fine, AFAIK, it's the first major upgrade

It depends on what you mean by it. The first MiG-29 version was the 9.12 and the first upgrade was the 9.13 version(introduced in ~ 1987), which had;

- a modifed fuel system with a little more internal fuel(enlarged fuel tank no 1) and ability to carry wing drop tanks.

- built-in ECM suite (L203 "Gardeniya-1FU)

- enhanced flight control system

- uprated payload capacity(weight) and IIRC also some extra types of unguided A/G munitions.

The MiG-29S(9.13S) is basically the same as the above, but with a modified WCS/radar(N019M) with R-77 compatibility. It came about a few years later(some claim as early as 1989, others around 1991). Confusingly both the MiG-29(9.13) and MiG-29S are called "Fulcrum C" by Nato.

But Interrestingly, the development of the much more radical MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31) started already in the beginning of the eighties even before the initial MiG-29 version entered service(in 1983-84). They were developed in parralel with the 9.13 upgade and were close to IOC already by the late eighties/early nineties. So they were just as much "Soviet era" aircraft and just as early as the MiG-29S.

Of course you could argue that they didn't enter production/service due the the fall of the SU, but then the situation concerning the MiG-29S is very unclear - i.e. whether this aircraft ever became operational or just existed as a few prototypes for testing the R-77.

But then, is a MiG-29S feasible from a documentation/licensing perspective?.

Hard to say - at least there isn't much open source information available on the WCS/radar modifications other than what is already implemented in DCS.

 

But Interrestingly, the development of the much more radical MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31) started already in the beginning of the eighties even before the initial MiG-29 version entered service(in 1983-84). They were developed in parralel with the 9.13 upgade and were close to IOC already by the late eighties/early nineties. So they were just as much "Soviet era" aircraft and just as early as the MiG-29S.

 

These first few prototypes never made it into service. The MiG-29M/K that got into service in the 2000s, after it got more funding, had a much much improved radar (Zhuk-ME) over MiG-29S, with ability to engage 4 targets at once, much much better fuel endurance (closer to an F-16/18 ), Link16 tier datalink aswell as EOS which according to some sources covers 360 degrees, can be used as a TGP and detects missile launches. It also has a more modern RWR.

In short, it can fight independently and has the tools to fight back against 2000s missiles and fighters, unlike earlier, 80s variants.

This variant was also sold to the Indians who use it to this day on their aircraft carrier. In the RuAf, the MiG-29K carries the upgraded R-77-1.

Now while there are even more modern MiG-29 variants with thrust vectoring and AESA, it would be pointless to ask for those, even in FC3.

To be relevant and be worth EDs effort economically, this 9.41 MiG-29M/K, which found its way into service in the late 2000s just like DCS F-16, is necessairy.

Though a flanker variant from the same era would better fit the requirement of being more on par with upcoming DCS F-15E/Eurofighter.

While the soviet era MiG-29M & Su-27M certainly provide an interesting avenue to explore I do firmly believe they should test the waters with either a Su-27SKM or Su-27SK

Particularly the later as quite a lot is known of its avionics capabilities and was much more widely exported and used than a Soviet era MiG-29M and Su-27M

There is absolutely no reason to assume that ED or (anyone else for that matter) is ever going to do a full scale GCI/AWACS overhaul. In addition to the thousands of things that are already "planned" (and have been for years) we already have planes in the game (the Mig-21 is the obvious full DCS module one) that absolutely require it, and have required it for years to become fully functional yet no one has done anything about it.

 

Even if they at some point decide to do a full fidelity module like the Mig29, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will ship with anything close to resembling anything like realistic (or even simplistic) GCI.

 

Even though single-player is touted as being the number one draw in DCS, the truth is that this is not really true for most planes in DCS that require anything more than basic functionalities which can be scripted. If you want GCI with your plane (regardless of NATO or Redfor) you need to fly it online.

Yeah, but you don't always have a GCI online. Honestly I think a basic GCI rework would really be welcome. Something like a check in script, and then what sort of GCI/AWACS experience you want.

1: for strikers, warn me of incoming threats. (closest 3 or whatever)

2: for strikers, warn me of incoming threats and friendlies within X miles.

3. For CAP guys: Give me the nearest 3 bandits and let me pick one to get a continual intercept course on.

4. For CAP guys: Give me the nearest 3 bandits and let me pick one to get a continual intercept course on. Plus let me know the nearest 2 friendlies.

Something like that would go a really long way in making it useful for online play.

Harlikwin that's not GCI, that's just a slightly better Awacs BRA call.

What's missing exactly?

Saw a Grim Reapers video where they said ED would be doing a full fidelity MiG-29A I wonder how much overlap they would have with the current one from FC3. Or if they would have to work from the ground up.

I hope its a later variant of the 29, and not the beatdown A version...

What's missing exactly?

Not sure if youre replying to me. GCI should be a dynamically calculated intercept, dynamic course/altitude callouts that take you from point A) to B) to C) to a final intercept behind the enemy bombers/planes/whatever.

Lurker said:

 

Not sure if youre replying to me. GCI should be a dynamically calculated intercept, dynamic course/altitude callouts that take you from point A) to B) to C) to a final intercept behind the enemy bombers/planes/whatever.

Okay, so instead of just giving you current position of the target via a BRA call, they give you steering instructions to actually intercept the target?

Okay, so instead of just giving you current position of the target via a BRA call, they give you steering instructions to actually intercept the target?

That's what our human GCI does in MP at least. Even better: BRA (to tell you the current picture for your SA) then intercept course to be in a position to employ armament. You don't actually care how long you need to fly to be where the bandit used to be when you got the call. You also don't need to be on top of the bandit, just within shooting range and in a position to do it. What matters is "where to fly to be in the best position to shoot him down". That's what I see as a possible improvement avenue for GCI.

Smt like GCI was implemented in one of the missions in FC2 where you had to intercept 4 tornadoes and 2 phantoms

Qiou87 said:

 

That's what our human GCI does in MP at least. Even better: BRA (to tell you the current picture for your SA) then intercept course to be in a position to employ armament. You don't actually care how long you need to fly to be where the bandit used to be when you got the call. You also don't need to be on top of the bandit, just within shooting range and in a position to do it. What matters is "where to fly to be in the best position to shoot him down". That's what I see as a possible improvement avenue for GCI.

I see, thanks!

 

Okay, so instead of just giving you current position of the target via a BRA call, they give you steering instructions to actually intercept the target?

What GCI should be doing is basically steering you "around" the enemy, which is why I said it should employ dynamic waypoints, course and altitude changes. So in effect it won't point you directly at the enemy, but will try to look at the whole radar picture and then deploy your flight in a way for you to stay out of sensor range of the enemy flight (or multiple flights) as long as possible.

With a human GCI operator, this is relatively easy. Programing an AI GCI would require some skill though, but I don't think it would be impossible: It's just vector and position management. (With awareness of the enemy's probable radar cones)

A really great (human) GCI will not only get you into an ideal intercept position, but it will also do so without you even needing to keep your radar on, then will tell you when to turn on your radar for weapons employment and then lead you along a best intercept route to avoid or escape from any potential enemy escort trying to chase you down. A good analogy that I like to think of is, think of it as a real time strategy game, where the GCI is the commander pointing and clicking along the map, and you are a unit on the map following each consecutive order.

 

Okay, so instead of just giving you current position of the target via a BRA call, they give you steering instructions to actually intercept the target?

Yes but there is a great deal more to the GCI/datalink system on the MIG-29. It provides you with all parameters of the target(bearing, speed, heading etc) and displays this directly on the HUD as if it was track data obtained by your onboard radar with additional instructions about how to manouver in order to intercept it. In other words, unlike BRA calls, GCI interacts directly with the aircraft's onboard WCS/display system. It can even control your onboard radar remotely - prep it and switch it on(from stand-by state), so the radar can find the target quickly and attack it as soon as its within missile launch parameters. To facilitate this, the radar also operates in a special scan "pattern" when under GCI control.

Sounds like the MiG-29 and other Soviet fighters really have the equivalent of a 'RIO'. Just ground based one with a huge ground based radar to search with.

ED now just needs to develop the Jesterovitch

Sounds like the MiG-29 and other Soviet fighters really have the equivalent of a 'RIO'. Just ground based one with a huge ground based radar to search with.

You know thats actually a pretty good way of describing it. I guess part of the rationale was to reduce the complexity(and thus cost) of the individual aircraft, while providing a RIO style support in order to reduce the workload of the pilot.

However, large ground based installations have become quite vulnerable to assets like land attack cruise missiles and stealth bombers, so the above philosophy is probably not viable in this day and age - i.e. fighters relying so heavily on GCI support could quickly end up as fish out of water and have a hard time fending for themselves.

In the late eighties there was clearly an effort to address this issue - partly by augmenting the network with mobile assets like AWACS aircraft and partly by making new fighters more sophisticated and capable of operating independantly. New datalink systems also made it possible to obtain tactical information directly from a range of individual sources - including other fighters.

ED now just needs to develop the Jesterovitch

Yeah but my point with the previous post was, that for a proper representation of the MiG-29/GCI functionality, its not merely a question of making the AI controller smart enough - there is also quite a bit of technical stuff involved in terms of integrating it into the WCS/display routine.

You know thats actually a pretty good way of describing it. I guess part of the rationale was to reduce the complexity(and thus cost) of the individual aircraft, while providing a RIO style support in order to reduce the workload of the pilot.

I think it was more of a doctrinal issue where the major decisions are made by the controllers on the ground, rather than the pilots. Their Armed Forces on the whole followed such inflexible organization.

In the late eighties there was clearly an effort to address this issue - partly by augmenting the network with mobile assets like AWACS aircraft and partly by making new fighters more sophisticated and capable of operating independantly. New datalink systems also made it possible to obtain tactical information directly from a range of individual sources - including other fighters.

They had AWACS since 60s, but IIRC their main role was to cover the Northern/Eastern approaches where the radar coverage had large gaps due to the vast areas and cold climate.

 

I think it was more of a doctrinal issue where the major decisions are made by the controllers on the ground, rather than the pilots. Their Armed Forces on the whole followed such inflexible organization.

В воздушном бою никто никого не ограничивал. Наземный пункт управления лишь помогал начать бой на наиболее выгодных условиях. Прямо как АВАКС, только куда полезнее

I think it was more of a doctrinal issue where the major decisions are made by the controllers on the ground, rather than the pilots. Their Armed Forces on the whole followed such inflexible organization.

It was both, and it was far from inflexible, just different, and quite well optimized for the Soviet strategic reality. Their doctrine put emphasis on operations rather than tactics, and defense rather than offense. Also, there was a lot more emphasis of combined arms. Notably, this way of doing things also make the problem of IFF significantly easier, since the GCI system would be aware which aircraft are under its control, it would have a much easier time assuring they don't shoot each other down than a pilot of any single one of them. It could also direct SAM sites to engage bandits. For defense, it was a pretty great system.

Probably not going to happen, the 9.12 Fulcrum A is probably the best case scenario.

I hope they do it eventually. Seems unlikely at the moment but at least they said they want to do it. Hopefully it will be a soviet one instead of the export A or B, although I'd take any.