SPO-15

[Temetre]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Raven (Elysian Angel):

That’s what I got from it as well. Not that it is a problem: it is a system designed to face the threats of that era. It would only need to be careful when facing F-14s (and DCS can’t replicate the Phoenix’s specific guidance anyway so who knows how it would behave).

Yup! They couldnt even test how it would perform against active missiles. And its not like modern RWRs are amazing in this regard, they can give you seconds of warning time at the best of times. 

Seems like there is a specific SARH warning, but this isnt completely reliable either:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2025-07-12/

Zitat

The system is also able to separate Continuous Wave (CW) signals from pulsed signals, and to interpret colocated CW and pulsed emitters as a single emitter in Semi-Active Radar Homing (SARH) guidance mode; it cannot however distinguish between different CW radar types, meaning this feature is susceptible to false alarm. Pilots thus need to be weary of the fact that the system will not always be able to accurately identify the threat type. 

Tbh I think its pretty cool to have this kind of detail modelled. Already like the attention of detail in the F4, and looks like ED is also stepping it up!  

[okopanja]

8 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Hm idk. Have you seen the interview, ED talked specifically about the RWR and active missiles. The way they describe it makes it sound like the SPO-15 is hardly capable to detect active missiles, let alone have specific warnings:

https://flyandwire.com/2025/09/04/mig-29s-spo-15-rwr-qa-with-eagle-dynamics/

For now I would treat the statements made in this AI generated video as unofficial. Until now we have now actual statements from ED.

If indeed they came to such conclusions, then I am wondering they should explain how they made them.

On top of it I would expect, is possible able to replicate IRL scenarios with consistent results. 

[okopanja]

40 minutes ago, Temetre said:

Hm idk. Have you seen the interview, ED talked specifically about the RWR and active missiles. The way they describe it makes it sound like the SPO-15 is hardly capable to detect active missiles, let alone have specific warnings:

https://flyandwire.com/2025/09/04/mig-29s-spo-15-rwr-qa-with-eagle-dynamics/

Looking forward to official statement from ED (e.g. whitepaper) compared to unofficial AI content generated video.

 

[NineLine]

The answers found there are from us, thanks. 

[okopanja]

11 minutes ago, NineLine said:

The answers found there are from us, thanks. 

Will there be a whitepaper?

[NineLine]

Just now, okopanja said:

Will there be a whitepaper?

Not that I am aware, a white paper is more focused. These were answers to some community questions. 

[okopanja]

4 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Not that I am aware, a white paper is more focused. These were answers to some community questions.

Yes but given the fact that AIM-120 was practically based on white papers, I assume you have used the conclusions on it, in order to infer on what SPO-15 was capable of?

[okopanja]

E.g. to calculate the distance at which SPO registers his side you had to know the peak output of power if transmitter. The aperature of antenna is easy to assume. And this output had to be strong enough to reach the target, reflect, travel back to seaker, so it can track the target the returned signal of certain level against the noise. This defines earliest time when the missile cam go pitbul.

In case of SPO reception, signal needs just to be received and passed through receiving antenna (which has some gain) and pass the threshold needed for SPO to register. In turn the SPO would get much stronger signal than the seaker. Clealrly internal noise and input sensitivities are not the same (as well as antenna gains), but in radar equation distance and output power are the strongest factors.

Edited 4 hours ago by okopanja

[Temetre]

vor einer Stunde schrieb okopanja:

Looking forward to official statement from ED (e.g. whitepaper) compared to unofficial AI content generated video.

Btw, if you hear an AI voice, it might be youtubes auto translation feature. I noticed it being enabled by itself a few times recently.

[AeriaGloria]

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

Yup! They couldnt even test how it would perform against active missiles. And its not like modern RWRs are amazing in this regard, they can give you seconds of warning time at the best of times. 

Seems like there is a specific SARH warning, but this isnt completely reliable either:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2025-07-12/

Tbh I think its pretty cool to have this kind of detail modelled. Already like the attention of detail in the F4, and looks like ED is also stepping it up!  

Unfortunately F-14/15/18 don’t use CW

[Karon]

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

For now I would treat the statements made in this AI generated video as unofficial. Until now we have now actual statements from ED.

I moved to an AI VA for a number of reasons I explained years ago. There is not a single line of content, whether it be text, sketches, images, or others that is generated with AI on my website. But I see you are quicker to spit labels on others' efforts rather than spending 30s checking other videos/article, since I clearly talked about that.

Just FYI, not everyone has the luxury of have a couple of spare hours free a week. I sometimes don't get them in a month. I do what I can with the time I have. What about you?
 

Thanks again to ED's folks for the Q&A!

[okopanja]

12 minutes ago, Karon said:

I moved to an AI VA for a number of reasons I explained years ago. There is not a single line of content, whether it be text, sketches, images, or others that is generated with AI on my website.

Ok, I will accept it is not generated by the AI. With proliferation of AI and no direct statement from ED, I had genuine concern which Nineline clarified. It's true: I did go over the line here.  But I also think ED should have spoken directly on this topic. I will not comment on contnet of your youtube further, and I am sorry for leaving you feel labeled and angry.

13 minutes ago, Karon said:

But I see you are quicker to spit labels on others' efforts rather than spending 30s checking other videos/article, since I clearly talked about that.

On my side I assure you that I did spend large amount of my time researching the topic of 29 flights in 1999. I did try to find out as much as I could, especially due to the fact that the pilots did experience problems whenever they tried to speak out. 26 years after the events we are still learning knew facts and each interview of the pilots from both sides provides additional information. Unlike propaganda narration of media on both sides, I found out that the interviews of the pilots largely matched each other, and that as humans they do respect each other.

In some cases I did find out that:

• parts of their statements were departing from the actually state on the ground, 
• sometimes they avoided telling everything. I would prefer not to use word lie, but simply they can not share everything with us. 

Each story is time-stamped so English and Serbian speakers can listen themselves potentiality comment on accuracy of translation or provide additional information (reason why forum was chosen in the first place). For each story I provided additional sources(e.g. crosschecked with other branches like VOJIN/EWR) and all information, to my best knowledge are public information with no confidential data.

Overall it has been a very satisfying experience for me, I do not feel the effort is wasted.

So answer is clear I did do my homework when researching the topic. Your comments are welcome. 

35 minutes ago, Karon said:

Just FYI, not everyone has the luxury of have a couple of spare hours free a week. I sometimes don't get them in a month. I do what I can with the time I have. What about you?

I do work full time, have a family, go on vacation, and probably do all the things you do as well, and just like you I like having this hobby, and have  used my free time and precious vacation days to e.g. visit newspaper archive for one of these stories. 

If this answer satisfies you I would rather place this topic back to the original track.

That said: how do we match the reality with simulated?

[Karon]

Quote

On my side I assure you that I did spend large amount of my time researching the topic of 29 flights in 1999.

I meant checking my channel/site to understand why AI is used in the first place. Ergo, the article I posted or other similar comments.
I haven't even read the previous posts on this topic and, had it not been reported to my attention by a friend of mine, I would have missed it entirely. Again, little time, too many things to check. I'm glad you like researching and better understand various aspects of this world. It is what I enjoy the most, since I have not been able to commit 3h to fly a proper mission since 2020.

Btw, if you have accounts, ideally from both sides, I am more than happy to post them on the website and credit them to you. The best thing to do with knowledge is sharing it.

 

Happy to continue, but admittedly still unhappy about being labelled so easily