FoxAlfa

Yeah it got me stunned also but it makes sence. Its all to radial velocity of the sweep beam. Lets say we have a search radar doing the 360 sweep and it takes 10 sec to do the sweep. At 10km from the radar the beam is covering circumference of ~62,8 km in 10 sec, and traveling at 6283 m/s radial velocity At 50km from the radar the beam is covering circumferences of ~314,1km in 10 sec, and traveling at 31416 m/s radial velocity Since lets say the antenna on the MiG are triggered if the that beam passes per example 100 m around the plane. The beam traveling at 6283 m/s will stay much longer in 100m trigger area then the beam traveling at 31416 m/s

Hey, yeah, the miss-identification from the Youtube guy really got me before I managed to dig in to the SPO-10 manual.... I didn't expect he would be able to attain SPO-15 so easy... so much for the classified stuff... Anyway, the manual you are using, page 62 11.5.6 2nd paragraph: "The irradiation of a plane of any direction illuminates the corresponding light on the indicator and in tact a tone sound in the СПУ and УКР. If the irradiation occurs in the search mode (pulse packs), the alarm will be triggered with the scanning frequency the antenna of the illuminating radar, and the approach of the illuminating radar the rate of the alarm will increase, and when withdrawing decrease. This is because when approaching the irradiation time of the aircraft increases and the time between irradiations at the same scanning periods decreases, which gives the impression of increasing the frequency. By withdrawing occurs the opposite phenomenon. If the illuminating radar switches to tracking mode that light alarm will be continuously" So as the enemy approaches our aircraft is illuminated for longer time, causing the system that shows blips at constant rate to show two blips instead of one. Basically the illumination time gets longer, so it triggers second cycle instead of just one. And as the illumination time keeps increasing eventual enters the third cycle and the three blips are seen.

Yes, we are but first thing you fail to accept is that SPO-10 had many versions. And separate versions and hardware for each. It was installed in MiG-21s, MiG-23, MiG-25s, Tu-16, Su-7, Yak-28 etc... for bombers per example it was connected to the jammers and countermeasures. I see you are referencing the manual from 1976 for SPO-10, I managed to find it but it will take some time to go trough it. Myself I am referencing MiG-21 Yugoslav Military manual from 1979 in my language. It might be complete reasonable that the SPO-10 got updated and changed in the time frame difference. But at least concerning the Yugoslav L-17 (MiG-21) the SPO-10 changed the number of blips with range. Feel free to check that manual online.

Ok, what we have, two different pilot training manuals that say the same thing, your incomplete documentation (lacks impulse graphs that trigger diodes) that says there is more stuff going on then signal->blink.... what can we add more.... OK, how about the construction of the L-006LM antenna (four of them for each direction were on the aircraft) from the SPO-10 which it self has 4 arrays to handle different signal strengths levels with the 1.9оm, 5.6om, 5.8om and 28om resistance as far as I can tell from the manual. You can clearly see them on this video: I don't know but I feel that trumps your hunch mate. The main issue with translations is that SPO-10 has 4 antennas with 4 channels each, and it is easy to mix them up. Again people tend to oversimplify the SPO-10 and what it can do and information it can provide.

I did check also the Yugoslav Military Manual for the L-17 (MiG-21), it has the same sentence. It is highly unlikely that multiple translator would have got it wrong, especially military translations for the documentation labeled back then as 'military secret' used for pilot training. Even from your documentation, as far as I can tell from the section 4. There are different impulses generated, some of them triggering "auto-reset" based on signal strength. Designing a circuit that displays one, two, three blips based on the detected signal strength isn't rocket science even for the 60's.

What GGTharos said and add the smoke to it....

to quote the manual, also attached at the M3 bug tracker. "While the enemy interceptor is closing upon the aircraft, the frequency of the СПО-10 equipment operation increases from the one operating cycle per illumination cycle to three operating cycles per illumination cycle. Once the illuminating radar has changed over from the SCAN to the LOCK-ON mode, the frequency of the sound signal sharply grows and the corresponding light start flickering" I can't find the other manual that had this elaborated, but basically one blip - long range, two blips - medium range, three blips - close. https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/file_download.php?file_id=14&type=bug

People tend to simplify the information the SPO-10 can provide do to it very badly design human machine interface (how it displays the info). SPO-10 can give you pretty much the same info as the SPO-15 apart from the radar type but for the single most powerful emitter. So, all in all you got about 30% right, the STT part is the main issue. It shouldn't light up all the direction when the enemy STT's you. But keep working with just direction light. Only if the source is close enough and powerful enough it should go to the 'all direction/merged' mode allowing you to keep SA and know where to attack or where from to runaway. That distance we are talking about radar dependent but very close (approx 5-10nm for Hornet). The problem is if anything locks you from any distance you basically lose the RWR and it becomes useless. This means that in any complex environments with lot of radars like BF servers your RWR is always in merged mode all the time and useless. Per example even Hawk attacking a friendly aircraft in you direction 100nm away would kill your RWR..see the problem? That's let say 50% of the problem Other 20% are blinking frequencies and SOD light display. Blinking frequencies should give you a rough distance on the source (same as light bar on the SPO-15). SOD light should light up if the radar painting you is friendly radar that is IFF integrating you and so... Generally if only the first part was solved I would be very very happy...

Produced till 2001 with more then 18000 made with thousands still flying, what else is there to say... o yeah, this: "If the engine quits in instrument conditions or at night, the pilot should pull the control column full aft (it won't stall) and keep the wings level. The leading-edge slats will snap out at about 64km/h, and when the airplane slows to a forward speed of about 40km/h, the airplane will sink at about a parachute descent rate until the aircraft hits the ground."

+1

What Jester said! :D

I guess they will gauge how the sales for the DCS go VS sales for FSX/P3D, and hopeful decide to port over the AN-2. I would love to have Anushka in DCS...

Ok, since you wish to disregard all the current tech limitations...like spectral analysis... lets talk tactics. When engaging an enemy that fires a missile at me do I want the my counter missle to go for the incoming missile or the enemy fighter? And the answer is quite oblivious... it should Allways go for the enemy fighter. Why? Since I want to get him to go defensive, drop a lock and worry about my missile and possibly shot him down. I can defend his missile in other ways, CMs, notching, jamming, out running, manvering, terrain... if it went for the missile all he would have to do it launch two missles in quick succession (preferred soviet tactic from the 50's till now btw) all my missiles would go for the first enemy missile, and the second enemy missile would have a best possible target it can get, head-on with high doppler return with a plus of enemy jet free to maneuver for the follow up shot... To conclude even if possible it would be a quite limiting factor and would make actual reduce the usability of the Amram by a lot. In the end I see more the case to engeenire against such a case then for it

Although an idea intercepting an Air to Air missile looks quite possible on the first glance there are so many technical things that make it almost impossible in RL. First would be missile fuze delay, there are well documented cases patriots intercepting SCUDs in Gulf war just to detonate too late to do any damage to it... in the end am not sure that and Air to Air missile would have enough mass to trigger the fuze at all. Second issue would filtering the radar returns. RCS of the Air to Air missile head-on is very small comparing to any AGM. Even if the missile did have the power to detect it, setting a missile seeker to such a low threshold would make the missile chase birds, rainy clouds, ground returns. Third issue would be intercepting such small constantly maneuvering target, there are well documented issues on US Navy having quite a difficult time intercepting ASMs like Kh-31 with dedicated equipment like ASGIS and CWIS.. with Kh-31 being much bigger and predictable target... simply it takes time with the current equipment to build up the picture and figure out what is going on with the target... the time that simplify doesn't exist with head-on shots at such speeds... and here I am not entering even the manoeuvre requirements that would be needed for such intercept Not to go even deeper, even if possible it would be highly impracticable since such a shot would have a very small odds of being successful, while a manoeuvre of turning you aircraft into an incoming missile would maximize the doppler returns and reduce the intercepting time that would increase its Pk of you by a huge degree

SPO-10 behavior is clearly documented and RWR should be fixed main thing wrong with the MiG in my opinion (your opinion may differ). So I hope M3 works on it soon. Anyone trying to look for the targets knows how valuable it can be pinpoint source heading to 30 degrees (also a radar search width in MiG), now it is impossible... it also gives distance information... there are also Technics to figure out ground or air targets with the SPO-10... if implemented correctly it can give way more information then people think...

Excellent, I am hoping the SPO-10 gets fixed... its really key in the MiG-21 situational awareness

I would love to see some new images of the Mirage, I am really looking forward to it. I got the C-101 now just to support AvioDev now...

Thank you for the info Chizh! I looking forward to the new R-27 in the future :)

Here the R-27t gets on the target quite fast, in first few seconds, as soon as it gets some air flow over the wings, much smaller turn radius then the 4.3km then I managed to get in the DCS. Also it is a shot with quite the deflection.

Worth noting also is, since the Aim-7 did hit, it did have even more room to maneuver, but R-27r missing is already over the limit. Making the difference even bigger.

Again to conclude... If you look the results, the Aim-7m which we know is as accurate as possible, was able to have ~30-40% higher turn rate with ~55% shorter turn radius, pulling 3x times AoA (thus much much larger drag) with the same G and much lower speed loss ( 9% vs 39%). I can't find any logical reason why the R-27r would have such bad turning performance

Of course the shot is not valid, again the idea was to force missiles to maneuver at same parameters so to be able to compare them. The range wasn't 6nm, but 6 km, check the setup picture. And Aim-7 parameters seam quite good and accurate also compared well to the Aim-120 and R-77 and make complete sense. the R-27r is again the black sheep that doesn't make sense.

Hello, I did some more tests and need your help understanding the results. I was trying to figure out the maneuverability of the missiles and the R-27r again managed to surprise me. The setup is simple fire a missile at a parallel flying non-maneuvering Yak-40, 45' to the right and 6 km away. here are the results table: Graphs: R-27r: Aim-7: Aim-120: R-77: I will compare only R-27r and Aim-7m since they are same aero configuration with R-27r being more advanced and developed with the full knowledge of the aero of Aim-7E. Basically, the weight difference is neglactable here since R-27r burns much faster. And even since R-27 is going faster the speed quickly drops to the similar speed to the Aim-7 so higher speed can not enplane such big differences in performance. The speed loss can be explained since the R-27r is maneuvering all the time and not able to get on the target but other differences in performance is stunning. If you look the results Aim-7m was able to have ~30-40% higher turn rate with ~55% shorter turn radius, pulling 3x times AoA (thus much much larger drag) with a much lower speed loss ( 9% vs 39%). What gives? I can't find any logical reason why the R-27r would have such bad turing performance...

Updated the links, let me know if you guys can open them... https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ImR...ew?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GqD...ew?usp=sharing

Hello, I don't know if you have access to TacView, but there are couple of Head-on use of R-27r against the AI. Ofc in MP you need to adjust the tactics toward the situation, dodging the AIM-120 is the first skill to learn, and for that just keep it in 600-800 kmh speed range... the biggest mistakes people do is rush in. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ImRIg6j9kanqwoLck9VFPGVx_-7fnVAP/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GqD3u5Y5PwfAYo-fnnkUOf4fbpgtr1MW/view?usp=sharing Master this and lot of people will think their missiles are broken :D