Lasur GCI - how does it work?

[1MajorKoenig]

Hi all,

 

I am curious about the Soviet Lazur GCI System. Is anyone here familiar with this?

 

I read somewhere that the ground control pretty much controls the interceptors remotely and the pilot only takes off and then controls the throttle and the radar/weapons until the final assault where he retakes control of the plane. 
 

Is that true? And how does this work?

 

Thanks for any insights

[1MajorKoenig]

In this article the MiG-25 pilot describes that he is pretty much flying on autopilot although that doesn’t seem to be steering by ground control but simply running on autopilot.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/hushkit.net/2018/12/12/loneliness-at-mach-3-interview-with-a-mig-25-foxbat-pilot/amp/

 

Now does anyone know if a typical intercept on lazur would be like this or do they only give the pilot instructions?

 

 

[Art-J]

The might have depended on plane, version and additional equipment I guess.

 

Certainly no remote control of the aircraft directly by GCI on the MiG-21s used in Poland from what I read a long ago - in this case Lazur was a one-way datalink receiver, working with Vozdukh automated GCI system, which was transmitting to the fighter info about course, altitude and speed required for the best interception profile (also distance to target I think), plus displaying all of it on relevant cockpit instruments. The pilot was still controlling the machine himself, though.

 

That being said, I also recall reading more advanced versions of the system used on pure interceptors like Su-15s, adding autopilots to the equation and supposedly allowing some form of remote control. Never investigated that closer, however.

[Mars Exulte]

The idea the planes themselves are being directly controlled remotely is just a bit bizarre and I don't understand why people keep claiming that. There's just no reason why you would ever actually do that.

 

The Soviets tended to have a very top heavy command structure with minimal flexibility or initiative for lower levels, not only in reference to aircraft, with a tendency toward micromanagement. I've seen multiple references to the mentality, from issues with Ukrainian troops with European trainers, to things like aircraft overflying troops in contact because it wasn't their assigned sector and so forth. Generally a rigid command structure, but not actual ''remote control''.

 

I.e. ground controllers vector the aircraft to their assigned targets and handle a lot of the tasking for what individuals would do, but the pilot is still flying the aircraft. You literally could not have a functional air defense at all if they were restricted to only throttle and weapon controls. If that was the case, then they would have never bothered with designing maneuverable dogfighters.

 

-edit

You could technically use autopilot enroute, but that's hardly unique to the Soviet system.

Edited May 10, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[TLTeo]

3 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

You could technically use autopilot enroute, but that's hardly unique to the Soviet system.

Yep, the F-106 had a system like that too. It's probably just coupling the autopilot to whatever direction indications are being transmitted to the aircraft, nothing fancy. I would imagine it might be useful if the pilot needs to focus on using their radar?

[Tank50us]

8 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

The idea the planes themselves are being directly controlled remotely is just a bit bizarre and I don't understand why people keep claiming that. There's just no reason why you would ever actually do that.

 

The Soviets tended to have a very top heavy command structure with minimal flexibility or initiative for lower levels, not only in reference to aircraft, with a tendency toward micromanagement. I've seen multiple references to the mentality, from issues with Ukrainian troops with European trainers, to things like aircraft overflying troops in contact because it wasn't their assigned sector and so forth. Generally a rigid command structure, but not actual ''remote control''.

 

I.e. ground controllers vector the aircraft to their assigned targets and handle a lot of the tasking for what individuals would do, but the pilot is still flying the aircraft. You literally could not have a functional air defense at all if they were restricted to only throttle and weapon controls. If that was the case, then they would have never bothered with designing maneuverable dogfighters.

 

-edit

You could technically use autopilot enroute, but that's hardly unique to the Soviet system.

 

 

This is correct. The Soviets were very big on micromanagement throughout their history, and some of that still exists today in Russia. Part of this is to also restrict where pilots can fly in order to prevent defections, but the core of it is to prevent personal initiative and get their missions done. While we would tend to think supporting troops in contact ensures a strategic victory in the end, the Soviets believed that none of that would matter if the bridge their enemies were using was still intact. Sure, this ignores the fact that those same troops could take the bridge from the enemy, thus negating the need to destroy it, but that's just how the Soviets operated. The only real point where pilots had their own flexibility was when it came to fighting back. Many an IL2 came back with air-to-air kills to its name because the pilot turned to engage rather then let himself be slaughtered for example. Some became so successful they were put into dedicated fighters where it was thought they'd be even more useful.

 

That being said, it should be noted that this system is still used by multiple countries today, and thus, NATO pilots are trained to deal with it accordingly. NATO officers also plan entire strategic campaigns to deal with it, knocking out C2 sites throws the enemy air force into total disarray if done right, and effectively makes it much easier to pick off the few planes that do get up since they have no idea where the actual fight is, so they tend to stick close to their airfields or certain locations they're assigned to protect.

[1MajorKoenig]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Mars Exulte:

The idea the planes themselves are being directly controlled remotely is just a bit bizarre and I don't understand why people keep claiming that. There's just no reason why you would ever actually do that.

It seems bizarre at first, yes. But if you think about it may not be.

 

As others pointed out the Russians were using very strict and almost rigid tactics avoiding individual initiative for the most part. And more importantly: in an interception speed is key. Why not just scramble and guide the interceptors remotely to the target - where the pilot retakes control to fight?

 

Simply vectoring the interceptors via voice commands was already done in WW2 by the Royal Airforce and the Luftwaffe. But that was „just“ via voice. 
 

That is why I am curious about how much more the Lazour system was doing? 
 

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Mars Exulte:

If that was the case, then they would have never bothered with designing maneuverable dogfighters.

The fight itself can’t be remotely controlled but that wasn’t the question. The question was if the interception up to the point of the engagement was remote controlled or not. And I don’t mean direction via voice.

 

vor 9 Stunden schrieb Mars Exulte:

edit

You could technically use autopilot enroute, but that's hardly unique to the Soviet system.

Was that the Common Modus operandi? I mean for a typical interception - would they do the intercept on autopilot until close to the targets? And would the autopilot waypoints be fed by the pilot? On the ground? Through data link?

 

vor 6 Stunden schrieb TLTeo:

Yep, the F-106 had a system like that too

That’s what I read too specifically about this plane. Still I am not sure how that works exactly it if it really “just” couple autopilot with what coordinates you receive from ground control?

 

vor einer Stunde schrieb Tank50us:

That being said, it should be noted that this system is still used by multiple countries today, and thus, NATO pilots are trained to deal with it accordingly. NATO officers also plan entire strategic campaigns to deal with it, knocking out C2 sites throws the enemy air force into total disarray if done right

Which is a natural reaction to such as system. 

[TLTeo]

8 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

That’s what I read too specifically about this plane. Still I am not sure how that works exactly it if it really “just” couple autopilot with what coordinates you receive from ground control?

I don't know either, but it's easy to imagine. Plenty of autopilots can steer to a commanded heading or altitude (rather than just hold altitude and/or attitude), it's just that in this case, the input would come from the datalink (and be the same e.g. that is displayed on the radar scope) rather than the pilot

[Kazansky222]

19 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

The idea the planes themselves are being directly controlled remotely is just a bit bizarre and I don't understand why people keep claiming that. There's just no reason why you would ever actually do that.

 

I.e. ground controllers vector the aircraft to their assigned targets and handle a lot of the tasking for what individuals would do, but the pilot is still flying the aircraft. You literally could not have a functional air defense at all if they were restricted to only throttle and weapon controls. If that was the case, then they would have never bothered with designing maneuverable dogfighters.

 

 

Fun fact, in the US the F-102 / F-106 interceptors could be flown by the GCI from take off to the target and all the way back to landing, with the pilot only pressing the weapon release.

 

From an interview this was not done in practice too often, but it was designed with the capability and it worked.

[Kazansky222]

10 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Simply vectoring the interceptors via voice commands was already done in WW2 by the Royal Airforce and the Luftwaffe. But that was „just“ via voice. 
 

That is why I am curious about how much more the Lazour system was doing? 

 

So to really understand Lazur, you first have to wrap your head around the difference in doctrine between the western "air superiority" or as we like to say nowadays "air supremacy", And the Soviet PVO doctrine which was strictly defensive in nature.

 

The backbone of the PVO wasn't really its aircraft, but rather is IADS/EW system, which was arguably the best in the world throughout most if not all of its existence. Interlocking webs of different air defenses to cover strategically important areas. Now the Soviet Union was also very large, much bigger then would be economically or technically feasible to have good EW and IADS coverage for the entire nation, at least not on the level that they deployed around important areas.

 

Enter PVO aircraft and Lazur, now if I'm not mistaken Lazur was specific to only PVO assigned aircraft not VVS aircraft for the reason that the Lazur system wasn't controlled by a GCI in the western sense, which can be used as an offensive as well as defensive tool, but it more turned PVO aircraft into "mobile sam sites" They were to plug holes and gap in coverage over this huge landmass that the PVO had trouble defending. Also you could do some interesting tactics with the ground based sams and PVO aircraft used in close coordination "mobile sam traps" and the like.

 

So Lazur was a very simple system from a pilots standpoint, the GCI really got to have all the fun. Input the pilot receives is based on airframe, for Example, the Mig-21 had an indicator to turn left or right, and to climb or descend.

In the Mig-23 I'm not sure if it was a HUD cue or the same as the Mig-21, but in the Mig-29 I'm almost certain there was both HUD cue and indicators on the HSI.

Su-15, Mig-25, Mig-31, no idea. I've heard the Mig-25 setup was similar to the Mig-21, and the Mig-31 setup was more similar to what we know from the Su-27, with a screen with visual representation, rather then a Dial or a HUD cue.

 

Oh and there was Light or cue that would turn on when it was time to engage the afterburners

 

For this reason I was really excited when ED announced the IADS thing..... 2 or 3 years ago? (but never said anything else again)

Because to really simulate redfor, you need IADS and when I say IADS I also mean Lazur, as its just one of the many branches off of the main system IADS system (EW/ECM/ECCM ect...). High fidelity aircraft, Low fidelity combat environment is the name of the game in DCS.

[1MajorKoenig]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Kazansky222:

So to really understand Lazur, you first have to wrap your head around the difference in doctrine between the western "air superiority" or as we like to say nowadays "air supremacy", And the Soviet PVO doctrine which was strictly defensive in nature.

 

The backbone of the PVO wasn't really its aircraft, but rather is IADS/EW system, which was arguably the best in the world throughout most if not all of its existence. Interlocking webs of different air defenses to cover strategically important areas. Now the Soviet Union was also very large, much bigger then would be economically or technically feasible to have good EW and IADS coverage for the entire nation, at least not on the level that they deployed around important areas.

 

Enter PVO aircraft and Lazur, now if I'm not mistaken Lazur was specific to only PVO assigned aircraft not VVS aircraft for the reason that the Lazur system wasn't controlled by a GCI in the western sense, which can be used as an offensive as well as defensive tool, but it more turned PVO aircraft into "mobile sam sites" They were to plug holes and gap in coverage over this huge landmass that the PVO had trouble defending. Also you could do some interesting tactics with the ground based sams and PVO aircraft used in close coordination "mobile sam traps" and the like.

Makes sense

 

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Kazansky222:

So Lazur was a very simple system from a pilots standpoint, the GCI really got to have all the fun. Input the pilot receives is based on airframe, for Example, the Mig-21 had an indicator to turn left or right, and to climb or descend.

In the Mig-23 I'm not sure if it was a HUD cue or the same as the Mig-21, but in the Mig-29 I'm almost certain there was both HUD cue and indicators on the HSI.

Su-15, Mig-25, Mig-31, no idea. I've heard the Mig-25 setup was similar to the Mig-21, and the Mig-31 setup was more similar to what we know from the Su-27, with a screen with visual representation, rather then a Dial or a HUD cue.

Great thank you for this info! So the vector given by the ground control is transmitted to the plane and displayed on HSI and HUD... now do you know by chance if the autopilot on the MiG-23, 29, 25 would pick this up to steer the plane automatically? Or would the pilot fly the plane manually while en-route?

And if you fly autopilot, how do you keep formation?

 

And do I read this right that VVS fighters didn’t use Lazur but only PVO did? 
 

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Kazansky222:

Oh and there was Light or cue that would turn on when it was time to engage the afterburners

Ok that is micromanagement...

 

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Kazansky222:

For this reason I was really excited when ED announced the IADS thing..... 2 or 3 years ago? (but never said anything else again)

Because to really simulate redfor, you need IADS and when I say IADS I also mean Lazur, as its just one of the many branches off of the main system IADS system (EW/ECM/ECCM ect...). High fidelity aircraft, Low fidelity combat environment is the name of the game in DCS.

Ahh that would be awesome! I understand that this would require very smart programming but it would fill this sim much needed live! 

Edited May 11, 2021 by 1MajorKoenig

[Mars Exulte]

2 hours ago, Kazansky222 said:

 

Fun fact, in the US the F-102 / F-106 interceptors could be flown by the GCI from take off to the target and all the way back to landing, with the pilot only pressing the weapon release.

 

From an interview this was not done in practice too often, but it was designed with the capability and it worked.

 

  Well, you could technically do that with any autopilot provided the target was directly ahead, but if they maneuver much or shoot back you're not gonna be able to avoid maneuvering. I just think people hang up on that bit too much and take it as being way more significant than it is.

[TLTeo]

5 hours ago, Kazansky222 said:

So to really understand Lazur, you first have to wrap your head around the difference in doctrine between the western "air superiority" or as we like to say nowadays "air supremacy", And the Soviet PVO doctrine which was strictly defensive in nature.

This is highly misleading and it frustrates me to no end. For most of the Cold War, Western Air forces had exactly two jobs: deliver nukes (TAC and SAC for the USAF), or shoot down things trying to deliver nukes (ADC in the USAF). It's no coincidence that, during Vietnam, there were exactly two communities that did very well in air to air combat: the USN F-8s for the whole thing, and the F-4 exclusively after Top Gun was established. Both of these were the first and, at the time, almost only, to put a strong emphasis on air to air training and ACM.

 

This whole idea of air superiority (which is not the same as air supremacy btw) only became a thing post-Vietnam, especially when the F-15 and to a lesser extend F-16 entered service. Even then, it took a long time to trickle down to many NATO air forces. For example, in the Italian Air Force, DACT did not become standardized until the 80s, and F-104 interceptor squadrons did not have any ECM gear (including decent RWRs) because it was thought that interceptors would not need it. All of these interceptors, whether they be British Lightnings,  Italian/Turkish/Greek/Norwegian/Danish/German/Dutch/Belgian F-104s (which again, contrary to popular belief, did not fly as makeshift A-10s), French Mirages, etc, were also tightly controlled by GCIs (this includes during ACM).

 

The main difference between the ADC/PVO and NATO/Warsaw Pact countries was how far the data sharing went. The ADC and PVO jets shared data with their GCI through a datalink, client states for the most part did not (although I may be wrong about the EE lightning). The best way to think of Soviet doctrine is that the PVO was basically an equivalent of the Air Defense Command, and the VVS was the equivalent of TAC and SAC, not as some entirely separate "the GCI does all the things and this is the only place in the world in which this happens" concept. What was unique about the PVO was its organisation as a completely separate branch of the Russian armed forces, not its doctrine.

Edited May 11, 2021 by TLTeo

[1MajorKoenig]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb TLTeo:

This is highly misleading and it frustrates me to no end.

That statement surprises me - while I haven’t served in the Soviet armed forces, it always appeared to me that Soviet military thinking was stunningly rigid. Almost to a degree where they put technology above individual thinking and initiative. 
 

vor 9 Stunden schrieb TLTeo:

What was unique about the PVO was its organisation as a completely separate branch of the Russian armed forces, not its doctrine.

Considering the size of the area to cover that sounds like a reasonable idea. Mind you that Naval aviation also often is a separate service branch for a very good reason. Although Russia merged the PVO into the Airforce after the Cold War If I’m not mistaken. 
 

Certainly you can develop equipment and tactics much more to your needs if you are a separate branch.

 

vor 9 Stunden schrieb TLTeo:

the GCI does all the things and this is the only place in the world in which this happens"

Hmm... as said I haven’t been part of the group but I read about an encounter between Soviet 23MLDs vs Pakistani F-16 and basically the pilots seem to got very frustrated about the rigid guidance they received instead of the initiative they wanted. I understand that it is also about RoE but this case somewhat shows the overall thinking potentially. 
 

vor 9 Stunden schrieb TLTeo:

The ADC and PVO jets shared data with their GCI through a datalink

And that is exactly my main question. Not so much if the GCI tactics are good or bad - more how exactly it was executed from the pilots’ point of view. 
 

And I understood that the exact steps differed from plane to plane. 
 

On another old thread I found something about the controls available to the ground control but cannot see he exactly that translates into the pilots’ doing.

Hence why I ask

 

I think there are a lot of very knowledgeable people around here - even some with real experience. So I hope to understand the system better 

 

[Seaeagle]

On 5/10/2021 at 12:17 PM, 1MajorKoenig said:

Hi all,

 

I am curious about the Soviet Lazur GCI System. Is anyone here familiar with this?

 

I read somewhere that the ground control pretty much controls the interceptors remotely and the pilot only takes off and then controls the throttle and the radar/weapons until the final assault where he retakes control of the plane.

 

If anything its more the other way around - the pilot controls the aircraft, while the GCI controller provides him with situational awareness, selects a suitable target and issues steering cues for most efficient intercept course.

 

The exact level of interaction depends on the aircraft in question - for the MiG-29 its pretty comprehensive.

 

When under GCI control, the radar is in stand-by mode(slaved to angular coordiantes of the target, but not emitting) while all target data is transmitted via datalink and displayed on the HUD as if the aircraft's own radar was tracking it, with the addition of the above mentioned intercept steering cues. When within range of target, the GCI controller can apparently even switch the radar on remotely, at which point the radar employs a special scan pattern that is narrower than normal(since the target's location is already established and the radar looking in the general direction) in order to shorten the time for lock-on/weapon employment.

 

   

Edited May 12, 2021 by Seaeagle

[TLTeo]

7 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Almost to a degree where they put technology above individual thinking and initiative.

You mean like the USAF stubbornly focusing on carrying the Falcon on their Phantoms instead of the Sidewinder, or taking ~5 years after Rolling Thunder to implement proper BFM training, despite witnessing the USN's successes during Linebacker 1 and 2? I'm being a bit disingenuous here, and Soviet doctrine was certainly rigid, but the same was true to an extend in the West as well, that's just a product of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO training almost exclusively for a nuclear conflict in the 50s and 60s.

7 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Considering the size of the area to cover that sounds like a reasonable idea. Mind you that Naval aviation also often is a separate service branch for a very good reason. Although Russia merged the PVO into the Airforce after the Cold War If I’m not mistaken. 
 

Certainly you can develop equipment and tactics much more to your needs if you are a separate branch.

Yep!

7 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Hmm... as said I haven’t been part of the group but I read about an encounter between Soviet 23MLDs vs Pakistani F-16 and basically the pilots seem to got very frustrated about the rigid guidance they received instead of the initiative they wanted. I understand that it is also about RoE but this case somewhat shows the overall thinking potentially. 

To some extent, but you can't take a single engagement as proof of much. Otherwise, you'd come to the conclusion that Tomcat pilots had a habit of ignoring the rules of engagement :)

7 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

And that is exactly my main question. Not so much if the GCI tactics are good or bad - more how exactly it was executed from the pilots’ point of view. 

ADC jets basically displayed a dot on their radar scope that guided them to a point where they would then turn on their target and execute whatever attack was chosen by GCI - depending on aircraft and/or armament, that could be rear/front/side aspect, or a pull-up to zoom towards the target. In the same way, when they reached that point, the datalink would also guide the pilot towards the target, and it was up to the pilot to find the actual bandit on radar and carry out the attack.

 

I don't know how the PVO did it, but I imagine it would be roughly the same. There's only so much one can do with a bunch of vacuum tubes after all

 

edit:

  

2 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

When within range of target, the GCI controller can apparently even switch the radar on remotely, at which point the radar employs a special scan pattern that is narrower than normal

I imagine this would just be some one-bar, narrow azimuth mode. Kinda cool that it can be done automatically though! In DCS I always use that manually if I know what I'm supposed to be intercepting, it's good to know what I'm doing is sensible.

Edited May 12, 2021 by TLTeo

[Kazansky222]

On 5/11/2021 at 2:11 PM, TLTeo said:

This is highly misleading and it frustrates me to no end. For most of the Cold War, Western Air forces had exactly two jobs: deliver nukes (TAC and SAC for the USAF), or shoot down things trying to deliver nukes (ADC in the USAF).

What was unique about the PVO was its organisation as a completely separate branch of the Russian armed forces, not its doctrine.

 

Well yea, you're correct for certain time periods, I only mention Air Superiority and Air Supremacy because thats what your average flight simmer knows and thinks, the discussion isn't about US/NATO style air doctrine, but Soviet style, and how Lazur fits in.

 

And the PVO is unique for its organization as a separate branch from the VVS, and its different organization comes from a different mission, hence a different doctrine, and differently equipped aircraft.

If you want to argue that the VVS and PVO have the same doctrine, you are completely wrong.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Kazansky222

[Kazansky222]

On 5/11/2021 at 12:58 PM, Mars Exulte said:

 

  Well, you could technically do that with any autopilot provided the target was directly ahead, but if they maneuver much or shoot back you're not gonna be able to avoid maneuvering. I just think people hang up on that bit too much and take it as being way more significant than it is.

 

The purpose was the intercept nuclear bombers. So not meant for fighting things that shoot back. In fact if my memory serves right the GCI could even turn on your radar, lock the target, whole shebang, everything except release the weapon. Those old school intercept designs were definitely purpose built.

 

But the system in those old F-102/106 planes was alot more advanced then an autopilot that just flies straight, it would literally fly your entire flight plan, all the way to intercept, all the way back, the computer in it was really big, like, it took a very large volume lol.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Kazansky222

[TLTeo]

20 minutes ago, Kazansky222 said:

Well yea, you're correct for certain time periods, I only mention Air Superiority and Air Supremacy because thats what your average flight simmer knows and thinks, the discussion isn't about US/NATO style air doctrine, but Soviet style, and how Lazur fits in

I agree, my point is simply that your average simmer is really uninformed and this air supremacy notion thing is dumb.

 

21 minutes ago, Kazansky222 said:

If you want to argue that the VVS and PVO have the same doctrine, you are completely wrong.

I'm not arguing that at all, I'm arguing that the PVO's doctrine wasn't some weird outlier

[1MajorKoenig]

I found this interesting piece of information on this matter:

 

”With the MiG-21, two versions of the automatic flight control system were necessary (Lasur and SAU), but just one would fit into the airframe, whereas both were fitted to the ‘23. For the first time, Lasur was connected to the autopilot, which meant the aircraft could actually be flown remotely.”

[Frederf]

For more information I recommend http://www.muzeumlotnictwa.pl/index.php/digitalizacja/katalog/2307 section 3.9 pages 111-114. It may test your Polish though.

My previous translation efforts I always typed a transcription with https://polish.typeit.org/ and then translated with https://translate.google.com/ . There does exist an OCR translator but it wasn't as good as manual. https://translate.yandex.com/ocr

In short parameters and signals are sent by ground to give certain instrument indications, radar lights, information lights, and sounds to the pilot for a semi-sophisticated direction. SOD-57 would be critical as the intercept is only controlled well with radar coverage of both the target and interceptor. Different SOD settings and idents could provide some feedback of status.

I see some -21PFM panels for Lazur with some interesting switches and lights https://www.ebay.com/itm/224562406407?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=711-53200-19255-0&campid=5338722076&toolid=10001

I do not know where the 100, 60, 36, !, X and Phi lights are located in the cabin.