Mobile RSBN/PRMG stations for mission designers

[some1]

Currently in the whole DCS there are only four airports with working RSBN and PRMG landing system, all on the Russian part of the Caucasus map.

A better solution is needed to fully utilize the aircraft at nigh or in bad weather, on different maps. In real life these stations were mobile and in theory could be deployed where needed.

The on board INS also depends on RSBN for position corrections. 

[lmp]

I think this is a must now that we're getting more RSBN capable aircraft (not just the 29 but also the 23). Mobile TACAN stations make it a lot easier to navigate in older Western aircraft, we should have the same for Eastern ones.

[Tarres]

This.

 

[twistking]

+1

[Gierasimov]

Yup!

[twistking]

Is RSBN the soviet equivalent to VOR and Tacan?

What about simple NDB type of beacons in soviet (military) aviation? I would assume that those were (are) a thing?
I know that every AI unit in DCS can act as NDB by using voice radio broadcast action, but a dedicated static asset and dedicated NDB action would also be a very good (yet simple) addition.

I assume that the Mig-29 could also navigate with "western" radio navigation beacons (VOR/Tacan/NDB), using simple radio direction finding. Is this correct, or are the frequencies not compatible?

[Tarres]

RSBN is Soviet equivalent to VOR and Tacan but uses different frequencies.

Navigation with Direction finding with NDB is made with the ARK-19, (ADF receiver) with 3 preset frequencies (can be doubled to six with the outer/inner selector) 

Edited January 8 by Tarres

[lmp]

RSBN is the Soviet equivalent of TACAN and PRMG is their version of ILS. Both systems already exist in DCS, there are a handful of stations on the Caucasus map, but none on other maps. The only aircraft that can make use of them now is the L-39. The MiG-21 also has an RSBN receiver but the developers decided to ignore the beacons placed on the maps and instead hardcoded their own.

Regarding other radio aids, out of the three you listed, the MiG can only use NDBs. It doesn't have a VOR receiver and TACAN is Western military standard, never used in the Eastern Block. There is also no support for Western ILS.

The RSBN receiver is much more useful than the ADF for a number of reasons though.

1. We get a lot more channels that are not set by the ground crew. The ADF frequencies are preprogrammed on the ground in the MiG and there is only three of them, or three pairs of outer/inner, I'm not sure exactly. 

2. We get range information and generally much better precision.

3. In combination with the PRMG it can be used for precision approaches, even using autopilot.

Also the RSBN was planned from the beginning to be a mobile system, that could be set up anywhere quickly. It would make a lot of sense to be able to actually use it this way.

[some1]

58 minutes ago, lmp said:

The MiG-21 also has an RSBN receiver but the developers decided to ignore the beacons placed on the maps and instead hardcoded their own.

IIRC they coded it before ED added RSBN to DCS, Mig 21 is older than L39.

[FlankerKiller]

Please, I use the mobile TACAN all the time. A mobile RSBN would be great. According to Wings of The Red Star this thing was supposed to provide air superiority over a battlefield. I can see that if backed up by good GCI. Having mobile RSBN to fly too would be sweet. 

[artao]

Oh gods yes please? I don't like using the F10 map while flying and the kneeboard maps can be a bit fiddly and don't show much information.

And ... The frequencies are hard-coded in the MiG-21? <sigh> And here I've been trying to figure out what I've been doing wrong. I keep learning of things in the MiG-21 that no long (or never did) work. Such as the radar weather filter not really working. ARK system being all messed up. Apparently some IFF issues. Hard-coded frequencies. Others. The MiG-21 needs an update; and deserves it. It's got to be one of the most popular DCS modules.

One thing's for sure: The Soviets-Russians sure don't like letting their pilots manually adjust radio frequencies.

[lmp]

35 minutes ago, artao said:

And ... The frequencies are hard-coded in the MiG-21? <sigh> And here I've been trying to figure out what I've been doing wrong.

Not the frequencies, the entire beacons. The MiG doesn't use the nav aids that are on the maps. Instead, for any selected RSBN, PRMG or ARK channel, it has it's own set of coordinates in a config file, that it points to instead. It's one of my biggest gripes with this module.

[draconus]

Yes, many of them are mobile.

Edited January 12 by draconus

[Northstar98]

Absolutely - the system is transportable IRL.

[Tippis]

Indeed, the mobility is sort of the entire point of the system, as part of its design intent is that it can be erected (more like “parked”) at any old bit of hardened surface to create a temporary dispersal field or road base.

 

…but yes, the need for such a unit as an active and usable beacon sort of hinges on their being aircraft that actually makes use of it. If it were just a static unit, then the model is effectively in the game already, just not user-placeable. The L-39 isn't exactly the most common combat aircraft to build missions around, so it alone would be pretty weak as an argument in favour of the full implementation. The -21 would need to be rewired to make use of them. We'll see what the -29 will bring.

Edited January 12 by Tippis

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, Tippis said:

Indeed, the mobility is sort of the entire point of the system, as part of its design intent is that it can be erected (more like “parked”) at any old bit of hardened surface to create a temporary dispersal field or road base.

 

…but yes, the need for such a unit as an active and usable beacon sort of hinges on their being aircraft that actually makes use of it. If it were just a static unit, then the model is effectively in the game already, just not user-placeable. The L-39 isn't exactly the most common combat aircraft to build missions around, so it alone would be pretty weak as an argument in favour of the full implementation. The -21 would need to be rewired to make use of them. We'll see what the -29 will bring.

 

We have the MiG-23 and 29 on the way and the fitter might use it as well. 

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, upyr1 said:

We have the MiG-23 and 29 on the way and the fitter might use it as well. 

Looks like it should, yes.

A worry would be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: they arrive without proper RSBN (or something built-in, akin to the -21) because so little of the system exists in the game, which then perpetuates the problem that only one module actually uses the system so there's little reason to implement it properly.

Best-case would obviously be if the whole bunch is rolled out in parallel, but technical debt is a bit of a DCS forte.

Edited January 12 by Tippis

[draconus]

On 1/12/2024 at 9:30 PM, Tippis said:

...only one module actually uses the system so there's little reason to implement it properly.

It's not an argument against the wish but russian FC3 aircraft also use it for the precise/lowvis landings.

[Tippis]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

It's not an argument against the wish but russian FC3 aircraft also use it for the precise/lowvis landings.

I'm pretty sure they use built-in databases of all airports and their approaches, irrespective of what beacons and nav aids are available. They were around and had those capabilities long before the beacons became a usable thing on the map.

I'm also pretty sure that ED have little to no interest to dive into that decades-old code to suddenly make them have enough simulated systems to make use of any kind of user-placeable beacons.

[draconus]

On 1/15/2024 at 1:12 AM, Tippis said:

I'm pretty sure they use built-in databases of all airports and their approaches, irrespective of what beacons and nav aids are available.

Whatever they "use" PRMG is simulated on 4 russian airports for them.

[cfrag]

On 1/12/2024 at 9:30 PM, Tippis said:

A worry would be a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem: they arrive without proper RSBN (or something built-in, akin to the -21) because so little of the system exists in the game,

If ED also add mobile (vehicle-based) ground stations (similar to the TACAN mobile unit) they could leapfrog this issue and make great RED road-based airfields possible.

[Tippis]

21 hours ago, draconus said:

Whatever they "use" PRMG is simulated on 4 russian airports for them.

Sure. It's more that they would not benefit from user-placeable units because they don't have that kind of system simulation, almost by definition of being FC3 aircraft. They'd have to reprogram them all and completely redefine this legacy product that they'd probably be happier to get rid of.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice — just that it's such a far off possibility that they don't work as far as counting how many planes would benefit from the added beacon functionality.

20 hours ago, cfrag said:

If ED also add mobile (vehicle-based) ground stations (similar to the TACAN mobile unit) they could leapfrog this issue and make great RED road-based airfields possible.

I suppose, sort of. You'd still have that issue of, why make the beacons at all if so few aircraft can use them, but why add it to the aircraft if there are so few beacons. It needs a bit of a commitment on either side of that equation for the thing to take off. Or land.

That said, there are already code hooks to add all kinds of beacons — TACAN code was exposed ages ago but couldn't be used properly for the longest time. From what the code suggested at the time, implementing RSBN/PRMG would be very similar to implementing TACAN so going for the placeable ones first is probably the easiest “in”. The models exist (if only as a map decoration rather than a static or live unit) and hopefully, getting those hooks to work shouldn't be too much effort.

Edited January 18 by Tippis