Hate the SPO15 :/

[Pavlin_33]

19 hours ago, Muchocracker said:

Myth. F-X program was active before mig-25 and had solidified the requirements that would end up becoming the F-15 without it even being considered the primary threat by US intelligence. Su-17 was. 

I dunno, Eagle looks awful alot like the 25 in layout, down to almost identical air intakes.

Do you have some references that back up your statement. I would be grateful.

[Pavlin_33]

7 hours ago, Weta43 said:

The point wasn't that the US doesn't or can't use GCI, it's that US planes were designed to be able to operate autonomously WRT target aquisition in the first instance, and could be supported by GCI if available, whereas Soviet aircraft were designed to not work autonomously, but instead be the sharp end of an integrated system starting with EWR systems.

it comes back to the force projection / home defense doctrinal approach mentioned above. 

If the purpose of an aircraft is to fly deep behind enemy lines to attack the enemy at its heart, then the aircraft has to be able to find and prioritise targets itself - if it's in a position where it can be supported by other assets (AWAC / GCI), then of course you do that. Why would you not? (& as you said, if you're tasked with a mission by a central command, that's what you do, not head off at your own whim)

Flying deep into enemy territory was never the intended mission of the MiG-29. Think about how short its legs are.

It really is just there to quickly get missiles to where the GCI intends them to be - which is why there are better radar scan rasters available to GCI operators on the '29's radar than to the pilot themselves...

People seem to think that AWACS and GCI in the real world work like in DCS: an all seing eye that gives you an F10 view of the battlefield.

In '99 NATO agressiom against FR Yugoslavia, USAF pilots found the (British) AWACS next to useless, as it was giving them erroneous reports and, in their words, was making the entire situation more difficult.

Same story on Serbian side with GCI, that was giving reports like: "Blue is comming from the west." No further instructions, no number and type of threat, no height and no speed. Just a one-liner that left the pilots use their imagination and wonder what to do with this information.

 

Edited yesterday at 03:18 PM by Pavlin_33

[MickV]

While I'm very much enjoying the MiG-29 overall, I fear that the SPO-15 is going to absolutely crater sales - and I say that as a dedicated Redfor guy who very much wants the MiG-29 to sell like hotcakes - so we can get a MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-17/22 etc. 

Having no effective way to detect enemy locks (let alone launches) is going to get real old, real fast for most players. 

[av8orDave]

56 minutes ago, MickV said:

While I'm very much enjoying the MiG-29 overall, I fear that the SPO-15 is going to absolutely crater sales - and I say that as a dedicated Redfor guy who very much wants the MiG-29 to sell like hotcakes - so we can get a MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-17/22 etc. 

Having no effective way to detect enemy locks (let alone launches) is going to get real old, real fast for most players. 

Yeah, I agree. I'm already to the point after having the module for about 24 hours that I'm done getting whacked by SAMs and AAMs. It simply isn't much fun to start up, take off, fly to a mission objective, and get thwacked without ever knowing it was coming. I play Retribution offline almost exclusively, and even with careful mission planning, it just isn't much fun to fly the -29.

[Pavlin_33]

5 minutes ago, av8orDave said:

Yeah, I agree. I'm already to the point after having the module for about 24 hours that I'm done getting whacked by SAMs and AAMs. It simply isn't much fun to start up, take off, fly to a mission objective, and get thwacked without ever knowing it was coming. I play Retribution offline almost exclusively, and even with careful mission planning, it just isn't much fun to fly the -29.

So you get "nails"? If yes, then assume that you are being targeted. If this helps in any way, that is.

[primus_TR]

Even when it works, SPO15 gives too many false and meaningless warnings. It is as useless as the SPO10 (the one used in the Mig21, Mi24) at this time. 

[MickV]

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

So you get "nails"? If yes, then assume that you are being targeted. If this helps in any way, that is.

"Keep your radar off so you know when to turn 180 and bravely run away towards friendly SAMs until there's no more lock tone" is not a gameplay experience I'm likely to recommend a friend pay $80 USD for.

I very much WANT to get friends to buy this module, but if it ain't fun, they're not going to be buying it. 

[Dača]

3 minutes ago, MickV said:

"Keep your radar off so you know when to turn 180 and bravely run away towards friendly SAMs until there's no more lock tone" is not a gameplay experience I'm likely to recommend a friend pay $80 USD for.

I very much WANT to get friends to buy this module, but if it ain't fun, they're not going to be buying it. 

Every goods have their own buyers. If you like it, buy it. If not, no reason to force anything.

[CrazyGman]

32 minutes ago, MickV said:

"Keep your radar off so you know when to turn 180 and bravely run away towards friendly SAMs until there's no more lock tone" is not a gameplay experience I'm likely to recommend a friend pay $80 USD for.

I very much WANT to get friends to buy this module, but if it ain't fun, they're not going to be buying it. 

I personally am loving the challenge and am having a blast. Playing on contention It requires you to keep your head a bit more out of the cockpit. and check with EWR for where contacts are, but then I'm also used to playing the MiG-21 and the F1CE a lot, where you can't rely heavily on the RWR. Regardless I still feel that it's doing decent right now in contention server, and that's even with both IFF and coop mode between the radar and IRST not working right now. I've certainly been able to get kills in it with both the R27R's and the R73 and they feel pretty satisfying. I feel not having a M2000 or F/A-18 level of RWR is not a deal breaker, and even if the front aspect portion of it was working with the radar on, I feel looking down all the time at it in the heat of combat is not the way to go. 

Edited yesterday at 07:26 PM by CrazyGman

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

People seem to think that AWACS and GCI in the real world work like in DCS: an all seing eye that gives you an F10 view of the battlefield.

That's how it's supposed to work like. That not every controller lived up to that exacting standard IRL was sometimes a problem, but when following proper procedures it should indeed let the pilot create a mental map of the battlefield. 

Also worth noting, in Soviet aviation, GCI had more of a command role than in USAF, where AWACS is more of an advisory that the pilot can use or not. NATO pilots in general have a lot more freedom than Soviet ones did.

[Hodo]

On 9/18/2025 at 10:46 AM, falcon_120 said:

Let's say it's not an air superiority fighter by USAF standards.

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk
 

Nothing the Soviets made is "by USAF standards"..... thats like saying a sailboat isnt to railway standards.  

Different doctrines entirely.   

[okopanja]

10 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That's how it's supposed to work like. That not every controller lived up to that exacting standard IRL was sometimes a problem, but when following proper procedures it should indeed let the pilot create a mental map of the battlefield. 

Also worth noting, in Soviet aviation, GCI had more of a command role than in USAF, where AWACS is more of an advisory that the pilot can use or not. NATO pilots in general have a lot more freedom than Soviet ones did.

Yugoslav manual indicates GCI can sends 3 different commands in order to activate radar illumination AVT, PPS, ZPS. If this does not occur, pilot is expected to do it himself. 

Not sure what ED plans to do, but I do hope DL actually includes dedicated GCI seat with all available options for GCI officer.

Edited yesterday at 08:46 PM by okopanja

[CrazyGman]

48 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That's how it's supposed to work like. That not every controller lived up to that exacting standard IRL was sometimes a problem, but when following proper procedures it should indeed let the pilot create a mental map of the battlefield. 

Also worth noting, in Soviet aviation, GCI had more of a command role than in USAF, where AWACS is more of an advisory that the pilot can use or not. NATO pilots in general have a lot more freedom than Soviet ones did.

It worked well enough in Vietnam, of course it still was not a perfect system, and while the pilots did have to obey orders say to wave off, once they were in the thick of it it was pretty much up to them.

[Dragon1-1]

14 minutes ago, CrazyGman said:

It worked well enough in Vietnam, of course it still was not a perfect system, and while the pilots did have to obey orders say to wave off, once they were in the thick of it it was pretty much up to them.

The US AWACS services were generally up to snuff. Other nations could be more... variable. Like with that story with the Brits, or how one South Korean AWACS guy seemed like he didn't know what "Judy" meant (their pilots apparently require talk-on right up until the merge), to great annoyance of the USAF F-15 driver who had to listen to his prattle, despite long having the bandit acquired on his own radar.

Edited yesterday at 09:38 PM by Dragon1-1

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, primus_TR said:

Even when it works, SPO15 gives too many false and meaningless warnings. It is as useless as the SPO10 (the one used in the Mig21, Mi24) at this time. 

I mean thats probably the case, but it should work with the radar on at least in the MPRF/pursuit mode. 

[TotenDead]

1 час назад, Dragon1-1 сказал:

Also worth noting, in Soviet aviation, GCI had more of a command role than in USAF, where AWACS is more of an advisory that the pilot can use or not. NATO pilots in general have a lot more freedom than Soviet ones did.

A typical war day of a USAF fighter:

>AWACS: Good morning, Mr. Hunt. ... Your mission, should you choose to accept it, involves the "A, B, C"
>Fighter: Meh, I'm taking a sortie off
 

 

3 часа назад, primus_TR сказал:

Even when it works, SPO15 gives too many false and meaningless warnings. It is as useless as the SPO10 (the one used in the Mig21, Mi24) at this time. 

I believe the F-4E and  the F-14A players can elaborate here, their RWRs are of similar design, IIRC. Can those also be considered useless and are those blinded by radar?
 

[CrazyGman]

2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

 

I believe the F-4E and  the F-14A players can elaborate here, their RWRs are of similar design, IIRC. Can those also be considered useless and are those blinded by radar?
 

This seems to be way more of an issue on the current contention server. Not sure if it is a scripting thing but playing 80S blue flag the SPO-15 is mercifully quiet in comparison. For some reason on contention everything including on your side is locking you basically at all times it seems. 80's blue flag you also are able to cold start the plane properly, so I wonder if most of the issues are currently due to specific problems on the contention server right now related to the new release.

 

[Dragon1-1]

9 hours ago, TotenDead said:

A typical war day of a USAF fighter:

>AWACS: Good morning, Mr. Hunt. ... Your mission, should you choose to accept it, involves the "A, B, C"
>Fighter: Meh, I'm taking a sortie off

Hey, as long as you make your time on station, you get paid the same no matter if you actually commit to anything while up there.  

[Temetre]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb TotenDead:

I believe the F-4E and  the F-14A players can elaborate here, their RWRs are of similar design, IIRC. Can those also be considered useless and are those blinded by radar?

It depends. The F-4E RWR (ALR-46) is in some ways more advanced, one of the first digital RWRs. It wont get blinded by its radar and has a real digital threat library; not enough symbology for everything, but for most ground based stuff. You only get launch warnings for some early to mid cold war threats, like the SA-6/8. With modern SAMs or fighter missiles/radars you get symbols, but not launch warnings. Technically with handoff/close attention you can hear suspicious radar mode changes (eg going search to track/guide), but that is more advanced and gets some needed fixes with the next update.

Even for noobs like me, it is very useful when you encounter older radar guided SAMs. Identifies the most important track/search radars of SAMs. With fighters its hard to even differentiate friend/foe, unless you modify the threat library (its LUA).

Dont got the module, but Mig-29s SPO-15 seems to be more of an analogue system, and one thats not overly sensitive/complex. But according to ED, its still somewhat purposeful: It can detect CW guidance, and that way give (audio?) launch warnings for some STT/SARH missile launches. They also say its not fully reliable, limited in sensitivity and can have radar conflicts tho. Still more of a 'fighter aircraft' RWR than the F4s in that regard tho.

 

From my F4-RWR experience, Id say let let the smart players figure out how it works, and in what situations it can be helpful the most. A bad RWR is often better than none at all. People talk a lot about GCI, but in DCS and pre-datalink fighters without the most modern RWRs, most of your SA usually comes from AWACS+mods like EWRS anyway.

Edited 10 hours ago by Temetre

[Temetre]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb Dragon1-1:

That's how it's supposed to work like. That not every controller lived up to that exacting standard IRL was sometimes a problem, but when following proper procedures it should indeed let the pilot create a mental map of the battlefield. 

Also worth noting, in Soviet aviation, GCI had more of a command role than in USAF, where AWACS is more of an advisory that the pilot can use or not. NATO pilots in general have a lot more freedom than Soviet ones did.

I wouldnt oversell the GCI aspect either tho. Even if there was an assumption that american planes dont get the same 'direct GCI control', they were still built to fly pre-planned and directed missions. Our heavily upgraded 75' F4 isnt very good in terms of SA either, despite one of the best pulse radar setups and RWRs at hand.

Neither red nor blue gets the luxury of real world level of direction and guidance, thats why most servers use super powerful AWACS mods.

Edited 9 hours ago by Temetre

[Flyout]

20 hours ago, MickV said:

While I'm very much enjoying the MiG-29 overall, I fear that the SPO-15 is going to absolutely crater sales - and I say that as a dedicated Redfor guy who very much wants the MiG-29 to sell like hotcakes - so we can get a MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-17/22 etc. 

Having no effective way to detect enemy locks (let alone launches) is going to get real old, real fast for most players. 

Sorry, but DСS is a realistic simulator, not a flight game with balanced forces.
Yes, Soviet RWR systems have always lagged behind American ones. That's reality.

[primus_TR]

40 minutes ago, Temetre said:

A bad RWR is often better than none at all.

I believe the opposite is true.  

12 minutes ago, Flyout said:

Sorry, but DСS is a realistic simulator

Except in areas where it is not. 

[Flyout]

14 hours ago, TotenDead said:

I believe the F-4E and  the F-14A players can elaborate here, their RWRs are of similar design, IIRC. Can those also be considered useless and are those blinded by radar?

The ALR-45 has a more advanced design with a digital processor, a digital threat library and more accurate threat positioning than SPO-15.

8 minutes ago, primus_TR said:

Except in areas where it is not. 

Can you name another, more realistic one?
Just without the F-16.

Edited 9 hours ago by Flyout

[Temetre]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb primus_TR:

I believe the opposite is true.  

Why? You can just mute or disable the RWR in situations where it doesnt help.

[Dragon1-1]

11 minutes ago, Temetre said:

I wouldnt oversell the GCI aspect either tho. Even if there was an assumption that american planes dont get the same 'direct GCI control', they were still built to fly pre-planned and directed missions. Our heavily upgraded 75' F4 isnt very good in terms of SA either, despite one of the best pulse radar setups and RWRs at hand.

Neither red nor blue gets the luxury of real world level of direction and guidance, thats why most servers use super powerful AWACS mods.

My point was more about the role the controller played in each doctrine. The F-4 was a multirole aircraft, and didn't always get AWACS coverage, for instance when escorting, or on a strike mission. The MiG, while it can be shoehorned into doing something other than GCI-guided DCA or CAP, really isn't very well equipped for that.

Just now, Flyout said:

Yes, Soviet RWR systems have always lagged behind American ones. That's reality.

Worth noting that in general, the impulse for developing the RWR system wasn't air combat, it was the SAMs. Which, notably, the Soviets were much less worried about, what with NATO being somewhat deficient in that area. There's a reason SPO-15 features a separate light (that gets absolute priority) and a whole subsystem for detecting what Nike Hercules is doing - you want to know when you're being painted by a nuclear-tipped SAM. Likewise, F-4's RWR was mostly a response to the proliferation of the SA-2, and further development took place to account for superior Soviet SAMs. Early on, RWRs on fighters simply weren't a thing, even when they were expected to face radar guided missiles in air combat. IRL, air combat depended not on locating the missile, but on watching what the launch aircraft is doing. As such, the SPO-15 was mostly concerned with ensuring the MiG didn't blunder into a Nike Herc envelope and get nuked out of the sky. It is adequate for the purpose of countering radar guided SAM threats of the era, not so much for surviving in a modern Fox 3 environment.