Read the forum code of contact
By: - 12th May 2008 at 13:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm trying to see which combat aircraft produced by the Soviet Union (these days) that are much more capable of autonomous operations than some of its GCI dependent ancestors.from my understanding, it would seem that the MiG-31 was the first serious attempt to make a fighter (interceptor in this case) less dependent on GCI and capable of attacking targets on its own. I would assume newer Flanker and MiG-29 variants are leaning towards this direction as well?
It also has to do with training. It's not just what you have but what you do with it.
By: - 12th May 2008 at 13:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm trying to see which combat aircraft produced by the Soviet Union (these days) that are much more capable of autonomous operations than some of its GCI dependent ancestors.from my understanding, it would seem that the MiG-31 was the first serious attempt to make a fighter (interceptor in this case) less dependent on GCI and capable of attacking targets on its own. I would assume newer Flanker and MiG-29 variants are leaning towards this direction as well?
There were no USSR aircrafts what there less capable of "independent" operations than western counterparts. Many of them however had better CGI links.
Generally, this is common misconception. There were many kind of units inside USSR airforce, several training strategies, etc.
By: - 12th May 2008 at 17:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It also has to do with training. It's not just what you have but what you do with it.
fail,lol
By: - 12th May 2008 at 17:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Btw, one of the Mig-31 functions was to create CGI-like command & surveillance field in places were no CGI exist.
By: - 12th May 2008 at 19:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
FLANKER-B.
Because it allowed the crew to get a much better SA of the airspace covered by the radar because the HUD and IPV displays were different and much more compehensive (more information could be get) than MiG-29 or early MiGs and Su. It also has Intra-Flight-Datalink-System, that could allow better airspace control of your buddies and much better coordination between members of same flight and other flights (at despise of bandwidth and refresh rate), even if the radar was controled on a pretty similar way to early Soviet fighters.
FLANKER-B and FOXHOUND-A belongs to same generation of "I don't need GCI" fighters, althrough technology solutions for both were different. Per example, Su-27's datalink (K-DlA or TKS-2-27) was far better than APD-518 of MiG-31, but Zaslon-A FCS was better than Myech FCS and FOXHOUND-A has a RIO...
There could be fair assumptions than combat procedures of FOXHOUND-A should be more "GCI-centric" than some of the FLANKER-B combat procedures stablished at more relaxed and "tactical-oriented" Frontal Aviation units. Remain that -31 was a pure and hard PVO product.
By: - 12th May 2008 at 19:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
fail,lol
Maybe you could clarify this nugget of wisdom? :rolleyes:
By: - 12th May 2008 at 23:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Tu-128 could operate autonomously.
By: - 13th May 2008 at 03:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
MiG-31 and Tu-128 were both designed to operate over the north pole, beyond the reach of Tall King and similar ground-based GCI radars. The purpose was to shoot down American bombers before they could launch cruise missiles.
By: - 13th May 2008 at 08:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
GCI intercept was used because no aircraft can carry the radars a GCI officer has access to at any one time. They took the time to create a ground based air defence network made up of multiple radars of all different frequency ranges, some of which are mobile and while not moved continuously are certainly moved occasionally making plotting their precise position difficult till they turn on.They allow Russian interceptors to approach their targets from the optimum direction and fire their weapons potentially without giving the target any warning at all.
With early radar technology it always needed two seats to have some sort of autonomy. I think some Russian night fighters had two seats but were not truly famous. Maybe someone has examples, wasn't the Yak-28 a night fighter?
GCI is the most efficient and most reliable way of taking down intruders, much better than putting all the radar technology into the fighter. It lacks the capability to send the aircraft beyond the reach of the friendly network.
By: - 13th May 2008 at 09:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Tu-128 could operate autonomously.
Even F-106 or MiG-21 could do it too, question is, was its WCS designed to allow a degree of indepedent pilot (crew) SA-builiding and own target allocation that allowed this kind of operation as a diferentiator of other aircraft?
By: - 13th May 2008 at 16:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With early radar technology it always needed two seats to have some sort of autonomy
That was more related with the early missil guidance systems (and the quantity of missiles controled ) than with the ground help
By: - 13th May 2008 at 17:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That was more related with the early missil guidance systems (and the quantity of missiles controled ) than with the ground help
Whatever the reason was, a single pilot was unable to
- control his radar screen for new targets
- monitor and track these targets
- identify them
- fire a weapon (no matter if missile or gun)
and besides this fly the aircraft and control the systems.
At least this didn't work out in high workload conditions (night, bad weather).
Besides this all, the pilot in his cramped cockpit misses the bigger picture. That is even true in today's "sensor fusion" dreamland.
Today autonomous find/track/identify/attack is only possible as many things are automated and the presentation of the radar returns is much more intuitive. Radar was normally used to pick up the target the ground station had identified and then make the final steps of the intercept procedure.
By: - 13th May 2008 at 17:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whatever the reason was, a single pilot was unable to....
Well, you are talking about the pilots work-load, im talking baut the tech capacities, is obvious, 2 guys can do a easier job than a single one,put 2 guys on a f15, and they can do a easier job, so.., but even these 2 guys were limited by the tech of that time....so......
But talking about the tech capacities, the GCI gave u info that was out range of your sensors
By: - 13th May 2008 at 18:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With today's technology, what is the optimum for BVR attack, having a dedicated WSO, or the pilot alone can do the job. Superficially, it does appear that having two persons is always better
By: - 13th May 2008 at 18:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
With today's technology, what is the optimum for BVR attack, having a dedicated WSO, or the pilot alone can do the job. Superficially, it does appear that having two persons is always better
Hmmm think about it though, what would be easier if your adept at using your systems, lets take a flight sim as an example - would it be easier flying your jet in whatever generic flight sim if your very competent by yourself or with a another guy, him sharing the workload, i personally think 90% of the time if not more an adept single seat pilot will be able to do exactly the same tasks as a two seater but most importantly quicker - the reason being that unless the two crew are working almost as one mind then they have to talk to each other, communicating what to do and when etc, this all adds vital time that is potentially dangerous for themselves. In short, single seater makes quicker decesions therefore speeding up the engagement cycle, surely a plus...
By: - 14th May 2008 at 00:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm trying to see which combat aircraft produced by the Soviet Union (these days) that are much more capable of autonomous operations than some of its GCI dependent ancestors.from my understanding, it would seem that the MiG-31 was the first serious attempt to make a fighter (interceptor in this case) less dependent on GCI and capable of attacking targets on its own. I would assume newer Flanker and MiG-29 variants are leaning towards this direction as well?
All of that is western propaganda.
First of all, any fighter needs guidance why because all the fighters have radar with ranges of +200km or -200km none can see a real view of the theater of operations all the aircraft need guidance either by GCI units or AWACS
Of course a MiG-21 and or a Su-15 without a CGI unit can not scan too much airspace, and with missiles of 20-30km of range is obvious limitations are real.
Same will be for a Mirage III or a F-4.
what in the west is usually portraited as the proof capitalism was better of communism was simple the idea of robotic soviet pilots against free western pilots.
they usually compare the MiG-21 and MiG-23 against the F-14, however never see the MiG-31 had data link and basicly was more independent sweeping and scaning more pieces of air real state than any other western machine in the 1970s.
The F-14 always flew with E-2s and the Israeli F-15s and F-16s flew with E-2s so far the autonomous interception was a blatant lie. if you have a E-2 guiding you you are dependant upon information given by the AWACS.
Now even satellite communications and data link make GCI units more inportant for western fighters proving simply it was politics more than real technology the myth of Russian over reliance upon GCI units
By: - 14th May 2008 at 02:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The difference was the focus of the decision making tree was in the cockpit for the Western pilot whereas it was up the chain of command 1,000 miles away in the Soviet Union.
Posts: 233
By: RyukyuRhymer - 12th May 2008 at 12:08
I'm trying to see which combat aircraft produced by the Soviet Union (these days) that are much more capable of autonomous operations than some of its GCI dependent ancestors.
from my understanding, it would seem that the MiG-31 was the first serious attempt to make a fighter (interceptor in this case) less dependent on GCI and capable of attacking targets on its own. I would assume newer Flanker and MiG-29 variants are leaning towards this direction as well?