Talk:Ground-controlled interception

Back in to the USSR
There is no word on the soviets, even though unflexible GCI was a totally russian thing, they never allowed combat jet pilots to think or do anything on their own! 91.83.31.96 (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed this omission too. This article is actually linked from other articles in the context of Soviet GCI, but it doesn't even mention it! Tijfo098 (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably because the Soviets had no GCI system before WW II and when they did finally get the system the Cold War had begun and any such systems they deployed would have been highly secret, so available information is probably very limited in the West.


 * I suspect their systems were initially based on the German wartime radars that they captured, such as Freya, and Würzburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.48.146 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

First line introduction to GCI is misleading/factually wrong. Most GCI is done from the radar head itself in the interest of speed of reaction. The original ROTOR scheme was planned to centrally direct but abandoned as the information could not keep up with the target speed.Ditto Linesman system. In the UK the new (1954) T80 radar pioneered control from the radar head and this goes right through to modern RAF use. it is possible to centrally control fighters but it is far simpler (particularly on a modern air transportable radar) to work at source. I suggest the into is re-written? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmpltd (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete information
This article lacks detail in certain key areas and the text about 'phoning radar data into operations rooms directly is incorrect. The data went to RAF Bentley Priory Filter Room first before going to the sector ops rooms described. The data about GCI searchlight radars is only partially correct. The whole article needs a lot more research, detail and citations. Cmpltd (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
I was looking at ways to fundamentally improve this article with re-writes-citations-links etc and realised the simplist way to do it is to delete the whole thing and start again. The article 'as is' suffers from factual errors (already flagged) and incomplete and partially correct information. Cmpltd (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the prod. As an alternative to deletion to a start-class article in mainspace, I propose you create a similar but improved version in a personal sandbox (say User:Cmpltd/Ground-controlled interception), then return to this talkspace to discuss its merits and advantages. BusterD (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind..but the article as it stands is flawed and misleading. Why should I do all the hard work? I've flagged specific points in the article over time with no response. I would take part in a collaboration to improve but I'm not setting up a solo coconut shy for lazy rock throwers. Cmpltd (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ground-controlled interception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071116065249/http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm to http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)