okopanja

The tracer is optional and enables visual tracking of R-27 and R-60 which is indicated by the fire of red or orange color. for R-27 tracer is placed in the wing. For R-60 in tail section. Can this be added to the weapon load dialog when re-arming? 01.VTUP.001 01.0.319

The only reason I call it like that is video game from 90s. Fulcrum/flanker is not uses in my language, not sure about ex-soviets. 21 was certainly not fishbad.

Let me guess: this is from the Black Shark days?

Just to give additional hint. Luneberg lense antenna forms 4 beams. Each is supposed to be 20 degree width. Sectors 4,5(10) cover from 0 to +-20 Sectors 3,6(30) cover from +-20 to +-40 Sectors 2,7(50) cover from +-40 to +-60 Sectors 1,8(70) cover from +-60 to +-80 Luneberg lense can also cover more angle, but at expense of gain. In case of full SPO-15, documemt states 20 degree each. Remaining is the question for 90 degree. I have no info on pattern of rear antennas (they would offer least gain).

Try at 75-80 and see if it lights on. I did not have time to test ED's implementation.

При всём уважении к тому, чем вы занимаетесь ради заработка: это вопрос технического состояния. Мы ищем информацию о сигнализации, но если вам нужно, чтобы радар был выключен, вы можете использовать вариант ВЫКЛ/Эквивалент.

And yet you have stronger technical document stating that blanking is there and radar itself has diagram with output signal for SPO-15 blanking? This can not be denied by pilot's manual, yet it can be explained with deterioration of electronics. Either in radar or in SPO-15. It should be distinguished from the time when aircraft was new and operational from the time several years later where these mechanisms did not work anymore. Hence, we need to be able to trigger those failures, but otherwise the radar and spo should behave according to their designs.

Какова дата выпуска вашего документа, и можете ли вы сообщить нам, какой именно это документ?

Вы также можете использовать эквивалентный переключатель для гашения. Дополнительная сигнализация не требуется, если вы хотите ограничиться только полным гашением. You can also blank on equivalent switch. No need for additional signaling if you want to limit yourself only on total blank. В любом случае, верхний технический документ более надежен, чем отчёт разведки + 1 страница из неизвестного руководства. Кроме того, польский документ по RPLK указывает, что конструктор радара был осведомлён о L006.

Interview with the pilot will be made available in english in future. We have a rather graphical proverb in Serbian( for those not easily offended): "Лако је туђим курцем глогиње млатити".

Please start with the date of the release of the page of the manual you got. So far this is the only manual that states this, while we have at least technical document also stating explicitly that SPO does not get blinded by radar. Would be nice to have at least the exact reference so we can lookup further things.

Я уже писал об этом на английском. Поскольку я не говорю по-русски, предлагаю вам воспользоваться переводом Google-Tarzan на русский. У югославских ВВС, эксплуатировавших 9.12b, были серьёзные проблемы с надёжностью электроники МиГ-29. Наиболее распространёнными неисправностями систем были: 1. Радар 2. СПО-15 3. "навигационная система" До войны летать могли только 2-3 самолёта, и предпринимались отчаянные усилия по восстановлению их работоспособности. В результате большая часть самолётного парка в 1999 году продолжала летать, но с разным уровнем фактической работоспособности. В реальных условиях системы выходили из строя при запуске или во время полёта. В некоторых случаях индикация выдавала предупреждения об ошибках, но в некоторых оборудование просто выходило из строя. Что касается СПО-15, есть как минимум один случай, когда пилот включил радар, и на СПО-15 загорелась лампочка-«ёлочка»/послышался звуковой сигнал. Более того, пилот Мирчета Йоканович, входивший в первую группу, прошедшую обучение в Советском Союзе, прямо заявил в интервью, что электроника выходит из строя и требует обслуживания/замены. В качестве основной причины отказов он назвал выход из строя электролитических конденсаторов, что приводило к каскадным отказам. Он упоминает, что в 1998 году российская сторона предлагала им обслуживание этих бортов по цене 200 тысяч долларов за самолёт, но политическое руководство отклонило запросы генералов Перишича (начальника штаба) и Величковича (командующего РВ и ПВО). Оба этих генерала были сняты с должностей в конце 1998 года, поскольку считались не слишком лояльными Милошевичу. И наконец, существует только одно руководство на русском языке, в котором говорится, что СПО-15 и радар несовместимы (см. выше). Для меня это звучит как крайне нетехническое описание проблемы и, вероятно, было реакцией на проблемы, с которыми столкнулась модель 9.12 в ходе ее более позднего использования в боевых действиях ВВС Советского Союза и России.

Can not say, ED would know this better. But, its nice to see you ex-Soviets being more involved into the 29 topics.

I support the rename. I wish ED was a bit more careful with internal naming scheme. For some aircrafts they use official designation but for some inofficial. And in some cases they actually duplicate designation for 2 variants (example Ka-50). BTW it is interesting to note that X-25, X-29 was envisioned in this version already. I wonder why they dropped that. Off course X-29 came to 29 later, but it is worth noting that it was part of upgrade options for 9.12 operators.

I spent significant time researching and comparing what we know about SPO-15 variants with actual video of SPO-15LM. Much to my surprise I only confirmed the limitations in azimuth resolution. The SPO-15 in it's original form fitted on more expensive aircraft had ability to collect illumination signal from 16 azimuth sectors, each 20 degree wide. This was done with 4 Luneberg lens antennas, each having 4 feeds. In addition there were 2 more antennas for UP/DOWN detection. Each of these antennas was connected to local RF converter/amplifiers. There were 2 variants 4 channel #204 and 2 channel #202 devices. These were placed in close proximity of antennas, and their role was to receive the RF illumination and amplify the signal so it can be transferred to the the central processing unit. In full system there were 4 #204 and 1 #202. 16 + 2 channels were lead to the SPO-15 central processing unit. Here there were 4 cassettes 31 each containing 4 amplifiers to accept 16 channels from #204 amplifiers, and a 32 cassette to accept remaining 2 channels for vertical detection. Amplifiers in 31 and 32 appear to be identical based on the components I could see in both of them. Luneberg lenses #204 units #202 units Up/Down antennas SPO-15 display SPO-15 control panel (more options than on LM version) 4x power supplies Analysis and control circuits (the brain of this device) However our SPO-15LM was likely an attempt to cut the costs... it has 2x#204 units for front sectors, resulting in reception of 8 antenna feeds it has 2x#202 units used for: rear wide angle azimuth antennas 2 UP/down antennas Here you can see the actual configuration (the control panel was likely for Su-17/22). With this setup the designers faced interesting dilemma: They got 10 azimuth inputs from #204 and #202 amplifiers + 2 more for vertical. They opted to free 2 inputs on cassettes #31 in order to connect sectors #11 and #14 (rear antennas). However 2 pairs of front azimuth channels were spliced together. Coverage remained the same, but the resolution of directions was lowered. This is why the manuals for the 29s show 2 antenna lobs merged together. null Personal though on cost savings: one might argue that interceptor does not need full resolution of azimuth in the back plane. We can accept this reasoning => cost cut they had to produce slightly more narrow assembly base (there are 2 slots less for #31 cassettes). In terms of complexity of wiring slightly reduced and slightly less material used. => minor cost cut they used same number of cassettes in the "brain". => No cost saving here for 10 channels they used same number rf convertes/amplifiers under assumption made under #1 => no savings instead of adding addition #31 or #32, 2 pairs of channels got spliced together => they saved money on additional #32 or using #31 instead of #32 I can only conclude that whoever made decision on where to save money did prioritize the price over functionality. For slightly more money the SPO-15LM could have had better azimuth resolution on the sides. In other words: he was either dumb or did not care.

I appreciate and respect your passion, but please stay on the topic.

Understanding how many inputs are modeled is important when considering this issue. Btw, which white paper? You mean Q&A or additional answer we got?

How many horizontal antenna inputs are presently implemented in SPO-15 of the module (not counting vertical direction antennas)?

L006 label on output line inside radar document, tells us that radar was designed with SPO-15 in mind.

For those who did not know, L006 is yet another name for SPO-15

You got document page?

Small localization proposals for the manual: - Along the screenshots of westernized instruments, please provide screenshots of original Soviet instruments. - Also if the altitude/distance/speed are mentioned in feet/nm/knots, please also include converted metric values (users will understand better why they have weird values. - Provide names of switches and controls along labels in Russian.

None of the 9.12 got enabled for fuel tanks initially. However this was done at later time and you can find enough of photos of 9.12 with these fuel tanks. Edit: just read your last message.

Inner/outer switch reverse order of launches. You see it does not strictly select specific stations, but rather defines launch sequence, e.g. 1,2,3,4,5,6 for inner. If you select outer you reverse. The theory is that if you omit hanging 3-6, you will actually get inner/outer switch to select either 1 or 2. This is a very specific case, and it might enable you to utilize R/T together. But this also needs to be checked...