Will there be a simulation of ground controlled interception?

[mjmorrow]

Will there be the simulation of ground controlled intercept missions? I would like to be able to turn the radar off and follow the direction of the ground, so I can sneak up on a target, ambush it, and down it close in, with guns or Atoll missiles. :pirate:

 

In any event, I am really looking forward to the release of the Leatherneck Simulations studio flagship DCS add-on, the DCS Mig-21bis and I will certainly purchase the Mig-21bis. :thumbup:

Edited May 4, 2014 by mjmorrow

[MBot]

The LS website claims that GCI is already implemented and functional in DCS World, which I think is a rather strange statement. I can completely understand if after the turbulences in the development of the MiG-21 they don't have the resource and time to do GCI. Or as I rather suspect, that features like that are outside the hands of 3rd party developers and depend on ED to be done. But claiming that GCI is already working in DCS is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

[crazyirish93]

It was answered in one of the threads basically this version of the mig 21 does not have GCI equipment that the original Russian non export version has but you can still have gci by linking the mig 21 up to a awacs or EWR.

[MBot]

GCI isn't dependent on the on the LASUR datalink, the pilot can equally be guided by voice radio. East Germany for example had both the LASUR and the SAU variant of the MiG-21bis in service, both of them as interceptors under the command of a ground controller.

 

The current "vector to threat" calls in DCS can hardly be compared to simulating GCI procedures.

[Cobra847]

The LS website claims that GCI is already implemented and functional in DCS World, which I think is a rather strange statement. I can completely understand if after the turbulences in the development of the MiG-21 they don't have the resource and time to do GCI. Or as I rather suspect, that features like that are outside the hands of 3rd party developers and depend on ED to be done. But claiming that GCI is already working in DCS is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

 

It is not a stretch at all; in our opinion.

It is capable of delivering, more or less, the same advantage that some kind of specific or custom GCI implementation would.

 

Creating an AI system that will drive some kind of GCI network (based on an old doctrine) which can vector MiGs to various targets in a fully realistic manner is not simple, and you'll very quickly run into diminishing returns.

[MBot]

Creating an AI system that will drive some kind of GCI network (based on an old doctrine) which can vector MiGs to various targets in a fully realistic manner is not simple, and you'll very quickly run into diminishing returns.

 

I completely understand that, and I am not holding it against you that this is out of your scope as a 3rd party developer. Yet I see it as a symptom of DCS in general that the very high detail simulations of aircraft are not operated in an equally detailed environment. You might want to re-evaluate that statement on your website, because I think people expect what you have outlined above from GCI.

 

A question about the current "vector-to-threat" functionality of DCS. Is that really sufficient to enable night/adverse weather intercepts with the MiG-21? It is my understanding that in order to achieve a radar lock on with the RP-22 radar, you have to be in a rather tight position behind and co-altitude with the target. Is that position attainable in a reasonable amount of time without being tightly controlled by GCI? As far as I remember, the DCS AWACS/GCI does not provide precise target altitude (just low, medium, high). Is that sufficient to attain a lock with RP-22?

[Dolphin887]

The LS website claims that GCI is already implemented and functional in DCS World, which I think is a rather strange statement... But claiming that GCI is already working in DCS is a bit of a stretch in my opinion.

 

MiG-21BIS is using the Eagle implementation of interception control. My opinion is that the implementation is very good at current DCS development stage. I would only add option for dedicated controller for each fighter group. The only purpose of this is to reduce the radio chatter when there are many fighters airborne, and improve the CI response time to user inquires. But this is not necessary since all units in the DCS can have dedicated radio channels.

 

Presented image is from the actual mission. The data given by interception controller are sufficient. In this particular mission some 60 aircraft are airborne at the same time, about 70% are fighters.

 

Once again:

the whole confusion concerning the "GCI implementation" was caused by Laszlo Becz statement the he "implemented" GCI. He did not implemented it - he only created a template EW unit which could be used on BLUE (generally Western) coalition, since it lacks the EW radars (thus, GCI). Process of templates creation is explained in DCS User manual and future MiG-21BIS manual. This was already mentioned in some other thread/s.

[hypersonik]

Will there by any noticeable differences between current EWACs and GCI ?

[MBot]

MiG-21BIS is using the Eagle implementation of interception control. My opinion is that the implementation is very good at current DCS development stage. I would only add option for dedicated controller for each fighter group. The only purpose of this is to reduce the radio chatter when there are many fighters airborne, and improve the CI response time to user inquires. But this is not necessary since all units in the DCS can have dedicated radio channels.

 

Presented image is from the actual mission. The data given by interception controller are sufficient. In this particular mission some 60 aircraft are airborne at the same time, about 70% are fighters.

 

Thank you for your feedback. It is reassuring that the threat calls now include quantified target altitude (I guess this was changed by ED somewhen in the past). As I understand it, being at the same altitude as your target will be important for a successful radar lock-on.

 

Still I am not yet convinced about the current system. With simple threat bearings we will be flying "dog-course" approaches instead of true intercepts. How will it be possible to fly precise maneuvers into a 6 o'clock position, especially at night? As I understand the capabilities of the MiG, the radar is not realy useful until you are on the targets tail with a limited rate of closure. To get into this position smootly from a head on approach on instruments at night depending only on BRA calls sounds rather unlikely. Maybe a little demonstration video to prove me wrong? :)

 

If you think about it, Ground Controlled Intercept even has it in the name that the intercept is controlled from the ground. Providing the player data from which he has to build up his own situation awareness and controll his own intercept therfore isn't really GCI :)

[mjmorrow]

Thanks to everyone, from the dev team and otherwise, for your responses. :thumbup: So, if I understand everyone correctly, I can turn off my Mig-21bis radar, contact control and I will be able to get the bearing, (relative to a bullseye) the distance, (in nautical miles) and altitude, of an enemy aircraft?

[mjmorrow]

Thanks to everyone, from the dev team and otherwise, for your responses. :thumbup: So, if I understand everyone correctly, I can turn off my Mig-21bis radar, contact control and I will be able to get the bearing, (relative to a bullseye) the distance, (in nautical miles) and altitude, of an enemy aircraft? If I can do that, I would be happy enough.

[IvanK]

"approaches instead of true intercepts. How will it be possible to fly precise maneuvers into a 6 o'clock position, especially at night?"

 

In the last century I flew the MIG21's Doppelganger the Mirage III. Its radar was pulse only and a little bit better than the average MIG21 radar of the time. 15nm pickups (lookup) were the norm against small Fighter (Mirage/MIG21) size targets We did Intercepts (All weather day and night) under Close GCI control when GCI had the capacity to do so. However when the bad guys hit in large numbers like mass raid scenarios we did Intercepts under Broadcast Control (BCI's). In this case the controller simply broadcast in a clockwise rotation the range And bearing from the GCI site of the target with a very average height readout that was around +-5000ft in accuracy. Disciplined Antenna search routines in elevation were essential.

 

The Pilot then did all his own intercept geometry. You plotted on your kneepad each successive Rng and Bearing together with your own range and bearing from the GCI site. After say 3 plots you had a best guess target track. This enabled you to establish a rough cut off vector. Looking at the Kneepad plot you had a rough idea of the geometry or Heading crossing angles. If a VID was required needing a stern conversion you applied rules of thumb to convert to the Stern. One technique we used ("The Hook" ... or the "Sync Z turn" in the USAF F4 community). This was pretty simple. As soon as you contact you placed him on the nose. Determined the HOT/COLD side of the scope (though you probably knew this already and if so just maintained cutoff till 10nm). At 10nm you turned to place the Contact 40degrees Cold, you then immediately reversed the turn using Bank as required to hold the contact 40 Cold. Eventually you would end up around 3G ... time to turn as required to bring him to the centreline. If done correctly this gave a roll out range of around 1-1.5nm.

 

With a little bit of practice you became quite proficient in this type of control. So dedicated 1 on 1 GCI might not always be available so you need to do the work :)

Edited May 5, 2014 by IvanK

[Dolphin887]

As I understand it, being at the same altitude as your target will be important for a successful radar lock-on.

 

No, generally you need to be below the target.

 

With simple threat bearings we will be flying "dog-course" approaches instead of true intercepts.

 

EW gives you BRAA. Where will you fly depends on you.

 

How will it be possible to fly precise maneuvers into a 6 o'clock position, especially at night?

 

That will certanly be impossible for many.

 

To get into this position smootly from a head on approach on instruments at night depending only on BRA calls sounds rather unlikely.

 

Same as previous.

 

If you think about it, Ground Controlled Intercept even has it in the name that the intercept is controlled from the ground. Providing the player data from which he has to build up his own situation awareness and controll his own intercept therfore isn't really GCI :)

 

You are right. "GCI" became a common term for many things here. I allready explained the source of this confusion.

 

MiG-21BIS will be unique in many ways: most people will find it very complex to master, and difficult to manage. It can't be compared to the fighters that players used to fly in FC/X. When it comes to aircraft use in combat, players will discover their own tactics, like they did for any other aircraft so far.

[MBot]

"approaches instead of true intercepts. How will it be possible to fly precise maneuvers into a 6 o'clock position, especially at night?"

 

In the last century I flew the MIG21's Doppelganger the Mirage III. Its radar was pulse only and a little bit better than the average MIG21 radar of the time. 15nm pickups (lookup) were the norm against small Fighter (Mirage/MIG21) size targets We did Intercepts (All weather day and night) under Close GCI control when GCI had the capacity to do so. However when the bad guys hit in large numbers like mass raid scenarios we did Intercepts under Broadcast Control (BCI's). In this case the controller simply broadcast in a clockwise rotation the range And bearing from the GCI site of the target with a very average height readout that was around +-5000ft in accuracy. Disciplined Antenna search routines in elevation were essential.

 

The Pilot then did all his own intercept geometry. You plotted on your kneepad each successive Rng and Bearing together with your own range and bearing from the GCI site. After say 3 plots you had a best guess target track. This enabled you to establish a rough cut off vector. Looking at the Kneepad plot you had a rough idea of the geometry or Heading crossing angles. If a VID was required needing a stern conversion you applied rules of thumb to convert to the Stern. One technique we used ("The Hook" ... or the "Sync Z turn" in the USAF F4 community). This was pretty simple. As soon as you contact you placed him on the nose. Determined the HOT/COLD side of the scope (though you probably knew this already and if so just maintained cutoff till 10nm). At 10nm you turned to place the Contact 40degrees Cold, you then immediately reversed the turn using Bank as required to hold the contact 40 Cold. Eventually you would end up around 3G ... time to turn as required to bring him to the centreline. If done correctly this gave a roll out range of around 1-1.5nm.

 

With a little bit of practice you became quite proficient in this type of control. So dedicated 1 on 1 GCI might not always be available so you need to do the work :)

 

 

Awesome post, it is great to have such first hand input directly on the forum. I assume the Hook required a full radar lock to be flown? It will be interesting to try that maneuver in the MiG, especially with its poor radar. With +/- 30° azimut in scan mode and +/- 30° maximal roll stabilization with target lock it would probably have to be flown more relaxed and initiated at bigger range. But then we quickly run into problems with radar range. Practical search range for the RP-21MA (MiG-21MF) is about 20 km, for a lock the range needs to be below 10 km. The MiG-21bis' RP-22 search range is probably a bit better, but I don't know if the lock on range is still limited to 10 km. I wonder if with such a poor radar performance any autonomous flown IMC intercept will be possible at all (other than an approach from the rear all along).

[MBot]

No, generally you need to be below the target.

 

Is the RP-22 different than the RP-21 in this regard? This description of the RP-21 states that the target needs to be at the same altitude, or more precisiely the target needs to be in the middle radar line, in order lock it up.

[RagnarDa]

He probably mean that you need to be under the target because the radar doesn't handle ground interference.

[Dolphin887]

Is the RP-22 different than the RP-21 in this regard?

 

Yes. See attachment.

 

He probably mean that you need to be under the target because the radar doesn't handle ground interference.

 

No. See attachment.

 

This is a description I wrote few years ago, to explain the RP-22 to Eagle, for implementation and support, in gaming purposes. This document was presented in locked 21 forum, in one of the Laszlo Becz posts in this thread http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=97314.

MiG21BIS radar RP-22SM basic description.zip

Edited May 5, 2014 by Dolphin887
typo

[xxJohnxx]

The radar scans -1,5° downwards and 17° upwards. It can be elevated by 1,5° to reduce reflections in low level flight. Therfore you want the target above you.

[MBot]

Yes. See attachment.

 

This is a description I wrote few years ago, to explain the RP-22 to Eagle, for implementation and support, in gaming purposes. This document was presented in locked 21 forum, in one of the Laszlo Beczl posts in this thread http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=97314.

 

Thanks a lot, that clears up the requirements of the RP-22 to achieve a radar lock (+/- 5° azimut, +17°/-1,5° elevation, <20 km range).

[xxJohnxx]

MBot, the manual states +- 30° in aizmuth.

[MBot]

+-30° azimuth is for search. In order lock the target it has to be within 5° azimuth. Once it is locked up, it can again be up to 30° from the center axis without breaking the lock.

[xxJohnxx]

Oh okay, thanks for the clarification.

[IvanK]

Awesome post, it is great to have such first hand input directly on the forum. I assume the Hook required a full radar lock to be flown? It will be interesting to try that maneuver in the MiG, especially with its poor radar. With +/- 30° azimut in scan mode and +/- 30° maximal roll stabilization with target lock it would probably have to be flown more relaxed and initiated at bigger range. But then we quickly run into problems with radar range. Practical search range for the RP-21MA (MiG-21MF) is about 20 km, for a lock the range needs to be below 10 km. The MiG-21bis' RP-22 search range is probably a bit better, but I don't know if the lock on range is still limited to 10 km. I wonder if with such a poor radar performance any autonomous flown IMC intercept will be possible at all (other than an approach from the rear all along).

 

Nope the "HOOK" was flown in search. We had +_60deg in Azimuth available, but could reduce it to a +-30deg sector (quicker update rate) this 30deg sector could also be offset to be centered on any azimuth as well. This was done using the Radar Hand controller (the TDC or Radar only HOTAS of its day). The Lock was only taken once in the stern for accurate range for weapon employment.

 

If an IMC VID was required SOP was to take a lock to get accurate rate and closure once in the stern and to get Sight orders in the HUD (gunsight in reality but an advanced one). You could close to close formation quite happily following sight orders.

[Nirvi]

So back on topic, will the campaign shipped with Mig21 BIS feature GCI missions at all?? Even scripted (non) simulated missions can be very immersive if they are scripted and or voiced correctly. This is a serious consideration for perspective buyers (including myself) so I would really appreciate an answer to this question. Thank you.

 

There is no campaign shipped with the relase version. Campaign will be (hopefully) added later.

[JaNk0]

You can focus on learning the aircraft :)