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 September 9 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

[AeriaGloria]

On 9/9/2025 at 7:10 AM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

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).

What about Sparrow? 
 

Against Phoenix, atleast you have missile tag that estimates the closure of a long range missile 

[marmor]

On 9/7/2025 at 11:27 AM, AeriaGloria said:

But I was reading APG-65 manual the other day and there were lots of references to “PDI ( pulse Doppler illumination)” needing to be injected to both tune and guide the Sparrow. 
 

I am assuming perhaps that we may not be able to see Fox 1 launch on the “stock” ME setting but see it on the automatic one with the assumption that the details of this PDI have been loaded into it. 

On the apg-65, the Hi PRF of RWS/STT/TWS is Range Gated. It's at a lower duty cycle(~33% according to the case study)and lower PRF(if I'm not mistaken?). So mprf like processing and (FM rangine used too?).

On that manual it states

Quote

"HPRF is always used in the velocity search(VS) and when sparrow missiles are launched"

For VS I just think a high PRF and high duty cycle. The PDI (Hi PRF) is commanded by the apg 65 if the sparrow is selected and the target is under 1.2Rmax

On 9/8/2025 at 3:40 PM, AeriaGloria said:

And if F-14/15/18 firing sparrow is truly indistinguishable, it is quite a difference that Western RWR can magically detect it.

They shouldn't detect F14s/15/18s. Tornado F3 tacman states that a locks from planes that guide SAHR through HPRF should be taken as a missile in the air and be defensive. And THAT RWR was quite advanced for its time and showed ALOT of information. If you look at the emitter list, you have the fighter(lets say mirage) and under it a different signal, IM, for mraam. F14 has one, as it used both PD and CW. But no extra signal for F18/15. 

Quote

 After all, can they detect pseudo faked CW waveform of N-019? 

Why not? The CW section is considerably large in time to tell the difference between a pulse and a continuous wave.  As you know it switches back and forth between CW and Pulse. ~30ms cw and ~20ms for pulse. The pulse is 1.25-1.5 microsec and HPRF is 160-220kHz. You can fit 4800-6600pulses. Mathematically, you can consider the CW part as a cw infront of the pulse. 

 

 

[AeriaGloria]

4 minutes ago, marmor said:

On the apg-65, the Hi PRF of RWS/STT/TWS is Range Gated. It's at a lower duty cycle(~33% according to the case study)and lower PRF(if I'm not mistaken?). So mprf like processing and (FM rangine used too?).

On that manual it states

For VS I just think a high PRF and high duty cycle. The PDI (Hi PRF) is commanded by the apg 65 if the sparrow is selected and the target is under 1.2Rmax

They shouldn't detect F14s/15/18s. Tornado F3 tacman states that a locks from planes that guide SAHR through HPRF should be taken as a missile in the air and be defensive. And THAT RWR was quite advanced for its time and showed ALOT of information. If you look at the emitter list, you have the fighter(lets say mirage) and under it a different signal, IM, for mraam. F14 has one, as it used both PD and CW. But no extra signal for F18/15. 

Why not? The CW section is considerably large in time to tell the difference between a pulse and a continuous wave.  As you know it switches back and forth between CW and Pulse. ~30ms cw and ~20ms for pulse. The pulse is 1.25-1.5 microsec and HPRF is 160-220kHz. You can fit 4800-6600pulses. Mathematically, you can consider the CW part as a cw infront of the pulse. 

 

 

Okay thanks. But can F-14/15/16/18 RWR detect launches from their own side IRL? 
 

And then there’s the matter, would it have been possible to reprogram the Hercules launch warning for other targets if you had the information? Not sure how many people could answer that. 

[marmor]

34 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

But can F-14/15/16/18 RWR detect launches from their own side IRL?

Logically no(bc there's no other signal other than the STT HPRF and if it changes, the change occurs when missile is selected and target is under 1.2Rmax) and everything points towards it.

39 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

would it have been possible to reprogram the Hercules launch warning for other targets if you had the information? Not sure how many people could answer that. 

No clue at all

[Muchocracker]

5 hours ago, marmor said:

On the apg-65, the Hi PRF of RWS/STT/TWS is Range Gated. It's at a lower duty cycle(~33% according to the case study)and lower PRF(if I'm not mistaken?). So mprf like processing and (FM rangine used too?).

More or less correct. Along with lower duty cycle it uses 2 PRFs for eclipsing reduction. The FMR is also in 3 stages for range resolving and de-ghosting. Lower duty cycle would invariably mean it's a lower PRF is my assumption, probably closer to 100khz, vice Velocity Searches waveform being closer to 180-200. Somebody would have to do the math on that one i dont know what pulse widths were used. 

 

The best i've been able to gather for what exactly the waveform for PDI is on the 65/73 is it's the high duty cycle HPRF used for Velocity Search that is broken up by periods of the range bin'd HPRF for "burst ranging" (mentioned on other documentation about the 65/73). This is the reason i have become skeptical of claims that the late sparrows launched by more modern fighters dont give launch warnings. Should be a case by case basis determining if the waveforms change between STT and illumination. Which in this case it does and should trigger launch warning imo. 

Edited Thursday at 10:10 PM by Muchocracker

[Weta43]

On 9/9/2025 at 1:43 AM, Drona said:

Since DCS does not simulate bad maintenance or equipment issues, I guess this should not be a problem in DCS. 

I haven't bought it yet, but it seems your guess might have been wrong ?

 

[Drona]

Yes, I guessed wrong... but it is really funny that ED is simulating a bad maintenance aspect of this jet and not when it works right...

Yet, BLUEFOR (F16, F18) gets magic RWRs  

[marmor]

On 9/19/2025 at 12:06 AM, Muchocracker said:

The best i've been able to gather for what exactly the waveform for PDI is on the 65/73 is it's the high duty cycle HPRF used for Velocity Search that is broken up by periods of the range bin'd HPRF for "burst ranging" (mentioned on other documentation about the 65/73). This is the reason i have become skeptical of claims that the late sparrows launched by more modern fighters dont give launch warnings. Should be a case by case basis determining if the waveforms change between STT and illumination. Which in this case it does and should trigger launch warning imo. 

I forgot about the burst ranging part. However, the burst ranging is not for PDI. It's also used during normal STT coming from RGHPRF, VS acq and even MPRF to improve range accuracy.

Spoiler

 

Quote

15. BURST RANGING LOGIC. Burst ranging is requested at intervals by HPRF or MPRF track mode. The antenna is not scanning and the mode selected for burst ranging is either HPRF or MPRF RWS. A HPRF burst range is used to obtain range when acquisition has occurred out of VS or to update target range during low signal to noise ratio tracking conditions. A MPRF burst range is used to improve target range tracking accuracy. Following the completion of burst ranging the mode returns to HPRF or MPRF track

Quote

20. HIGH PULSE-REPETITION FREQUENCY TRACK MODE. The HPRF track mode is entered from the MPRF track, LPRF track or SRT operations, or from the HPRF RWS or HPRF VS operations, under control of the CPS. The mode operates with a waveform which is false in range data. Burst ranging logic is used to improve range data.

8. MEDIUM PULSE-REPETITION FREQUENCY SEARCH MODE. The MPRF search mode is commanded by the CPS. MPRF search occurs on selected bars of the range while search (RWS) operation. MPRF is used to detect targets which are not detected by the HPRF waveform in tail aspect. MPRF search also occurs at intervals during HPRF track to determine range to target (burst ranging). Since MPRF waveform causes false range and velocity data, the signal processing controls the effects of clutter and resolves the target range data.

16. MEDIUM/LOW PULSE-REPETITION FREQUENCY TRACK MODE. The MPRF track mode is entered from the MPRF search/acquisition mode or the ACM, HPRF (range gated and non-range gated) track, SRT, or LPRF track operations under control of the CPS. The MPRF track mode operates with a waveform which causes false data in range and frequency. The false data increases the target tracking ability of the radar. Burst ranging logic is used to improve range data.

Quote

53. Missile Illumination Logic. When commanded, the radar switches to the AIM-7 compatible prf with burst ranging. When burst ranging occurs, the radar provides a multibar, narrow azimuth scan pattern around the tracked target for a short time, then return to track is commanded. When the MC issues a burst ranging inhibit signal, the radar switches to the fully compatible AIM-7 PDI mode

Quote

49. MISSILE ILLUMINATION FUNCTION. The AIM-7 (sparrow) requires pulse doppler illumination (PDI) waveform for missile guidance. If the master armament switch is in the armament position and sparrow is the selected weapon, the radar attempts to track the target in PDI any time the target range is at or less than 1.2 times R-max. While in PDI, the radar occasionally does burst ranging. After the missile is launched, the radar will not do burst ranging but stays in PDI until 30 seconds after the missile is computed to have intercepted the target. If the radar is in track but not in PDI at the time of launch, it switches to PDI as soon as the trigger is squeezed to the second detent (launch initiate) on the aircraft controller grip assembly.

 

On the best case scenario. IF you could detect the difference between PDI and normal RGHPRF Track, you wouldn't get a warning when a missile is launched. You would get a warning that he is under the missile guidance waveform(PDI), meaning you simply don't know if there's a missile in the air. 

 

Had west germany erupted, warsaw bloc pilots would've taken nasty surpises straight up their cockpits. Like my PFP shows, straight into the hud.(IF the umbilical had been properly connected to the F15)

Edited 5 hours ago by marmor

[TotenDead]

27 минут назад, marmor сказал:

 

  Скрыть контент

 

 

 

Had west germany erupted, warsaw bloc pilots would've taken nasty surpises straight up their cockpits. Like my PFP shows, straight into the hud.(IF the umbilical had been properly connected to the F15)

IRL you start defending when you get locked And don't wait for the beeps yelling about the incoming missile

[Muchocracker]

47 minutes ago, marmor said:

I forgot about the burst ranging part. However, the burst ranging is not for PDI. It's also used during normal STT coming from RGHPRF, VS acq and even MPRF to improve range accuracy. 

We're looking at the same document then regarding STT logic. But it specifically mentions in earlier pages that during sparrow launches it will run burst ranging logic in PDI until the sparrow is launched and then burst ranging logic is inhibited. During that time it's fully using the higher duty cyle HPRF.

In either case in my opinion, there is enough of a difference here to indicate that a sparrow launch from an APG-73 would be picked up by RWR's, at least more advanced western varieties. I suspect it may be a delayed reaction thing where the RWR recognizes a mode change when the expected interval burst ranging didnt happen. 

-Yes the non-range gated HPRF is used in velocity search. But it's going to be recognized as a search by a scan rate
-Yes STT uses-non range gated HPRF, but it does periodic "supersearch" rasters with MPRFLU burst ranging at specific intervals. 
-During illumination. It's staring directly at the target using high dutiy cycle HPRF with no change in waveform until impact. No MPRF waveform is used during this time. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Muchocracker

[marmor]

19 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

there is enough of a difference here to indicate that a sparrow launch from an APG-73 would be picked up by RWR's, at least more advanced western varieties. I

With the only difference between PDI before and after launch is the use of burst ranging while the missile is off? How often would it need to do burst ranging to improve accuracy? I wouldn't say it does it in intervals <1sec. The RWR would've to fulfill, 2 conditions. STT and nonRG HPRF (if no burst rangine after x amount if time).

Imo, it is pushing it on hypotheticals. Not even more advanced and complex RWRs of western were able to know if there's launch as you can read on the Tornado F3 Tacman. 

[marmor]

52 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

IRL you start defending when you get locked And don't wait for the beeps yelling about the incoming missile

Eh, I've read/heard cases where it isnt the case. If not, just locking would put the enemy on the defensive. Its not that simple