DCS: MiG-23MLA by RAZBAM

Hi, is there any news from mig-23?

Hi, is there any news from mig-23?

Well the news is no new modules till the current ones are actually finished.

I meen do they are working to finish it, becouse I have not hear anything about process?

I meen do they are working to finish it, becouse I have not hear anything about process?

By my understanding this and the Tucano are on partial hold while Razbam sorts out some long standing issues with their other modules. I doubt progress has full stopped (Model's/Textures could well be ongoing).

In any event, I wouldn't take radio silence to mean anything with regards to the project -- as it's most likely 1+ years away, I'd expect to see more once they begin nearing EA window.

Showing stuff too early will just result in a wash of critiques of placeholder assets and other WIP artifacts that just muddy the waters and open the window for the usual "Razbam bad" that's been going around. (And I'm not trying to get into that.)

Personally I think devoting the time to fixing at least some of the issues in their other modules can only help this project, and I remain cautiously optimistic, as I really enjoy this plane and Razbam's former work, despite their issues.

Yeah basically this. I wouldn't expect to see the mig23 till next year. The harrier needs a bunch of systems coded and fixed, the mig19 needs the FM fixed and other bug fixes. The M2k is getting a revamp. Razbam isn't a huge team, 2-3 coders, and then 5 ish 3d modelers? I would guess the modelers are working on the mig23 and other planes, and once they free up the coders to do a basic model once the other planes are fixed we will see some news.

So basically it needs some sort of GCI AI or player controlled GCI to make it useful? I don't see the issue as displaying the information if I understand correctly.

Pretty much. The thing is that in real life the operators of this system would be trained and experienced individuals who would plot a proper intercept and the GCI we get in DCS is a bunch of bumbling imbeciles thus far.

If all you got is the direct vector to the current position of a randomly selected radar contact, you might as well leave the system off.

You seem to be pretty well documented on the topic. Can you share where to find documents or books about it please ?

Indeed. Id like to know more.

If there are no limitations by the current/future game system/engine it will be developed.

Hi OveStratos. Thanks for your response.

About the Russian GCI automatic interception developed in different versions IRL. I don’t really think is hard to implement at least in a basic way. Remember we already have dual control with AI driving. So if you set automatic interception mode (LAZUR or whatever else) for a particular human player, you probably can build a kind of AI second driving mode on the background (as we have in some modules) and of course the interception for the closest dangerous bandit, then next step is set on the background the interception trigger for this particular bandit and this interception could be done well. Of course all those triggered for the right freq and so on. What do you think about?

To not give the same bandit target on interception for more than one interceptor, you set this particular bandit hidden on the moment of the interception start, but visible only for this particular interceptor. Then the rest of the enemy can be individually intercepted with the same method

Or you could get fancy and have a menu to give you a direct intercept, or a side intercept, or vector in a few guys from different directions etc. Could be fairly easy to do menu driven, without an actual AI GCI.

It's scriptable. Just needs someone with plenty of free time to do it.

Lazur is nothing like Link 4 or 16. Those (more modern) datalinks are designed to enhance the situational awareness of the pilot. Lazur is designed to allow GCI operators to direct interceptors to their targets without using radio communications, the pilot basically just followed the instructions that came through.

 

 

 

I don't think such a system would be easily implemented in DCS. ideally you would need some sort of AI model like Jester, but for the GCI operator rather than for the guy operating the radar in the plane.

The Lazur allows GCI take control from pilot.

The GCI basically flies the aircraft and can signal few commands to HUD for pilot.

So GCI can set MiG-23 to fly at given altitude, heading and speed. As well activate radar and IRST and give the direction and targets to computer and select weapons to be launched. All without pilot doing anything.

GCI can give commands to HUD to launch missiles, turn around, return to base or attack. You get those as symbols at bottom the HUD.

Remotely for safety reasons GCI couldn't release weapons but that was pilot job.

The guidance system was pretty much what navigation system is in Su-27S or MiG-29 in DCS. You have rings for route, you get radar scope in HUD for target ranges, altitude and direction.

The pilot had possiblity take control from the GCI, but the general rule was that pilots was to obey GCI commands literally. So when GCI told to attack, retreat, regroup or change anything in the flight, pilots were to obey it, as the GCI had overall picture better than pilots itself, they had the strategy and tactics.

GCI saw on their radar scope what was happening in dog fight at merge and guided pilots to do all maneuvers based their information over radio.

The whole air defense was heavily GCI based and if you don't have datalink and GCI, you have like 20% what the Soviet air doctrine was all about.

the pilots literally could fly hands off from the take-off to the landing.

The Lazur as well delivered information of targets and own flights position. So cooperation engagement was possible that flight had own targets to shoot and keep own radar turned of until last second.

That was one of the worst compromised systems when MiG-23 fall in hands off Americans in Japan. As the whole GCI network was compromised.

The Lazur allows GCI take control from pilot.

 

..........

Interesting information and frankly hard to believe. You sure about all this technology back in the day?

Interesting information and frankly hard to believe. You sure about all this technology back in the day?

Was a old post over there some time ago.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1475727&postcount=1

https://www.mediafire.com/folder/9h98baii3btat/IADS%2C_GCI

Interesting information and frankly hard to believe. You sure about all this technology back in the day?

The datalink is/was integrated to autopilot. So all the data for intercept was possible be flying automatically.

Soviets were very much ahead Western with datalink and guidance systems, decades even.

Even Western top gun pilots were surprised about the efficiency of Soviets GCI controllers.

The datalink is/was integrated to autopilot. So all the data for intercept was possible be flying automatically.

 

Soviets were very much ahead Western with datalink and guidance systems, decades even.

 

Even Western top gun pilots were surprised about the efficiency of Soviets GCI controllers.

The six (F-106) employed a system to allow for GCI controlled intercepts (the Hughes MA-1) through the SAGE network... and first flew over a decade prior to the Mig-23.

I guess there must be a semi-automatic mode which would give flight path commands via flight directors for the pilot to follow. That would be neat. AFAIK except analogue data like flight path it can also trigger single commands like "Engage AB", "Radar PRF HI/MED" etc

The six (F-106) employed a system to allow for GCI controlled intercepts (the Hughes MA-1) through the SAGE network... and first flew over a decade prior to the Mig-23.

Yup. As far as I know, the first Western aircraft to be introduced with such a system was the F-102, which entered service in 1956.

Interesting information and frankly hard to believe. You sure about all this technology back in the day?

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" 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".

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 ).

Cool none the less. So he couldnt have a cup of coffee on his way to intercept evil imperialsts...

Good stuff, guys, thanks for the information :thumbup:

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" 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.

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/threads/mikoyan-mig-23-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.

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.