DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM - Page 58 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-29-2019, 05:57 PM   #571
foxbat155
Member
 
foxbat155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 318
Default

MiG-23 wasn't able fly automatically according GCI commands, only semi-automatic or directive, pilot was steering plane according command on instruments. Aircrafts like MIG-25P/PD/PDS, Su-15T/TM, MiG-31, Su-27 are able doo intercept automatically without pilot's help ( except of course pressing trigger ).
foxbat155 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2019, 06:38 PM   #572
Harlikwin
Veteran
 
Harlikwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 3,271
Default

Cool none the less. So he couldnt have a cup of coffee on his way to intercept evil imperialsts...
__________________
New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)
Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).
Harlikwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2019, 09:13 PM   #573
Alpenwolf
Senior Member
 
Alpenwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,980
Default

Good stuff, guys, thanks for the information
__________________

Cold War 1947 - 1991
Helicopters Tournaments
You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com
Alpenwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2019, 10:02 PM   #574
Fri13
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlikwin View Post
The technology of the day absolutely supported this, even for the soviets whom at that point weren't all that far behind the west in terms of electronics. The technology gap that "evolved" in the 80's wasn't really representative of the technology situation for most of the cold war, and the perception of western technological superiority was as much propaganda as it was fact for most of the cold war. Much of the tech issue is that folks in the west mainly engage in apples to oranges arguments when comparing systems/planes/tanks etc. that weren't really designed to do the same thing... I.e. soviet radar vs western radar. Wholly different ideas about how and when radar should be used and for what, stemming from very different approaches to the aircraft detection/interception problem. And the main problem in those "technical" discussions is that they often just leave doctrine out of it entirely.

I remember having a discussion on another forum and someone made a smarmy comment about soviet tank commanders circa the 70's using "flags" to coordinate tank formation movments. And there was much sniggering about how primitive soviet tanks must be not to have radios. Well, turns out soviet tanks had radios, and they quickly figured out that they could be jammed, and that radio silence on the modern battlefield is often a "Good thing" (tm) in many circumstances. So how do you solve the problem of coordinating tank forces without the convenience of radios? Yup flags, motorcylce messengers and clocks...

More recently a Marine general "illegally" won a wargame where he ended up sinking a CVBG multiple times using very primitive methods, which on the comm side also relied on using motorcycle messengers so that the OPFOR commander couldn't use EM methods to intercept/localize his comms. Of course he was touted as a "genius" for doing this, while this had always been a part of soviet doctrine, but they were "dumb".
Can agree on all of that.

Lots of comparisons comes from simply not understanding the other side perspective and logic.
__________________
i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 1080Ti SLI 11GB, Oculus CV1.
i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 60" HDR 4K.
Fri13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2019, 10:17 PM   #575
Fri13
Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxbat155 View Post
MiG-23 wasn't able fly automatically according GCI commands, only semi-automatic or directive, pilot was steering plane according command on instruments. Aircrafts like MIG-25P/PD/PDS, Su-15T/TM, MiG-31, Su-27 are able doo intercept automatically without pilot's help ( except of course pressing trigger ).
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thr...3-avionics.25/

http://www.airvectors.net/avmig23_1.html

"The MiG-23M also was fitted with the Lasour-SMA automated datalink guidance system, an improved derivative of the Lasour-1 datalink introduced on the MiG-21 interceptor series. The Lasour-SMA was integrated with the Vozdukh-1M ground-controlled intercept (GCI) network. The pilot still flew the aircraft but kept on climb and course headings as provided over the datalink. The directions were provided by indicators on a special dashboard panel under the HUD / gunsight, backed up by audio cues for the pilot to engage afterburner, perform a missile launch, and so on. The datalink was jam-resistant and allowed a MiG-23 to vector in on a target over the fastest trajectory. If the terminal attack was performed with the IRST and an R-23T heat-seeking AAM, the target might never see the attack coming."

"The MiG-23ML was very attractive, its good performance and BVR look-down / shoot-down missile capability being exactly what the PVO needed, while its deficiencies in maneuverability were not a major concern in the pure interceptor role. The PVO was strongly oriented towards automated CGI operations, and so the service obtained a variant of the MiG-23ML with appropriately optimized avionics, designated the "MiG-23P" -- the "P" standing for "perekvatchik (interceptor)"."

"The primary change was the incorporation of an SAU-23P autopilot / flight control system, which was integrated with a Lasour-M GCI datalink to permit intercepts almost completely under ground control, the pilot only handling the throttle as instructed by the system. At least 500 MiG-23Ps were built for the PVO from 1978 into 1981, and the type became a mainstay of the Soviet interceptor force in the 1980s. Upgrades were provided in service to support the R-24R/T and R-60M AAMs."


In the early variants pilot got guidance, in the upgraded models autopilot did flying with datalink.
__________________
i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 1080Ti SLI 11GB, Oculus CV1.
i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 60" HDR 4K.
Fri13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 04:58 AM   #576
=RvE=Tito
Senior Member
 
=RvE=Tito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pleven, Bulgaria
Posts: 2,458
Default

That's perhaps only for the 'P' model which has served exclusively within PVO of USSR and has never been exported. The MLA we're supposed to get shouldn't have such capabilities.
__________________
"See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89.
=RvE=
=RvE=Tito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 08:03 AM   #577
foxbat155
Member
 
foxbat155's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 318
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fri13 View Post
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thr...3-avionics.25/

http://www.airvectors.net/avmig23_1.html

"The MiG-23M also was fitted with the Lasour-SMA automated datalink guidance system, an improved derivative of the Lasour-1 datalink introduced on the MiG-21 interceptor series. The Lasour-SMA was integrated with the Vozdukh-1M ground-controlled intercept (GCI) network. The pilot still flew the aircraft but kept on climb and course headings as provided over the datalink. The directions were provided by indicators on a special dashboard panel under the HUD / gunsight, backed up by audio cues for the pilot to engage afterburner, perform a missile launch, and so on. The datalink was jam-resistant and allowed a MiG-23 to vector in on a target over the fastest trajectory. If the terminal attack was performed with the IRST and an R-23T heat-seeking AAM, the target might never see the attack coming."

"The MiG-23ML was very attractive, its good performance and BVR look-down / shoot-down missile capability being exactly what the PVO needed, while its deficiencies in maneuverability were not a major concern in the pure interceptor role. The PVO was strongly oriented towards automated CGI operations, and so the service obtained a variant of the MiG-23ML with appropriately optimized avionics, designated the "MiG-23P" -- the "P" standing for "perekvatchik (interceptor)"."

"The primary change was the incorporation of an SAU-23P autopilot / flight control system, which was integrated with a Lasour-M GCI datalink to permit intercepts almost completely under ground control, the pilot only handling the throttle as instructed by the system. At least 500 MiG-23Ps were built for the PVO from 1978 into 1981, and the type became a mainstay of the Soviet interceptor force in the 1980s. Upgrades were provided in service to support the R-24R/T and R-60M AAMs."


In the early variants pilot got guidance, in the upgraded models autopilot did flying with datalink.

Well...…..nope. GCI system was automated, data link was automated, but autopilot wasn't. MiG-23MLA and MiG-23P have only one difference: data link device type, MLA had Lasoor, P had PVO's used system called 5P15 because WWS and PVO were separate air forces formations and were use different GCI systems. Autopilot from MiG-23 (whatever which variant) have only two automated modes: route flight according RSBN-6S, and landing approach according PRMG-5. This is very common misunderstanig what means by Soviets "automated GCI", first systems from late 50's and early 60's had a operator, person which was observing radar's scopes and manually was setting and sending commands to fighters by ARL. Later systems were automatized, GCI operator only have to assign target to fighter, choose tactics variant and all rest was calculated and sent by computers in GCI center. Like written before only MiG-25/31, later Su-15 and Su-27 had this capability.
foxbat155 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 12:17 PM   #578
Harlikwin
Veteran
 
Harlikwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 3,271
Default

There any decent books on how soviet era gci worked/tactics?
__________________
New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)
Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).
Harlikwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 02:55 PM   #579
Alpenwolf
Senior Member
 
Alpenwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by foxbat155 View Post
... GCI operator only have to assign target to fighter, choose tactics variant and all rest was calculated and sent by computers in GCI center. Like written before only MiG-25/31, later Su-15 and Su-27 had this capability.
So GCI didn't have control over the weapons system, correct? Only assigning targets, providing tactics, etc. I mean, the GCI operator couldn't lock up targets and fire missiles, right? Otherwise I'm speechless, especially if you look at the era we're talkig about there. If they were so good back then, who knows what they can do with a MiG-31!
__________________

Cold War 1947 - 1991
Helicopters Tournaments
You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com
Alpenwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2019, 02:55 PM   #580
Alpenwolf
Senior Member
 
Alpenwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlikwin View Post
There any decent books on how soviet era gci worked/tactics?
Don't ask for books or manuals. You might get arrested these days
__________________

Cold War 1947 - 1991
Helicopters Tournaments
You can help me with keeping up the server via PayPal donations: hokumyounis@yahoo.com
Alpenwolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:53 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.