Hate the SPO15 :/

[Flyout]

On 9/18/2025 at 7:07 PM, Кош said:

Being blinded by own radar is listed as "Common malfunction" in SPO-15 manual for ground personnel. To make SPO-15 not blinded by own radar, technician must perform service stated in SPO-15 collection of technical cards, book 3 card 9. It explicitly states that radar bleed into display is a malfunction.

You're mistaken.
The combat manual for the 9-13 aircraft (as you know, a later version than the 9-12) states the following in Russian:
When the radar is switched on, it is impossible to use the information from the SPO-15 due to its erroneous and chaotic nature.
And this isn't the only source of information prohibiting the use of SPO when the radar is switched on.

Edited 9 hours ago by Flyout

[primus_TR]

8 minutes ago, Temetre said:

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

That's what I do,  as all the spo 15 does is distracting you with false warnings. 

[Flyout]

7 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

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.

I agree.
That's why the first batch of MiG-29s didn't have countermeasures dispensers at all. They did later, but they were only intended for flares. The threat from radar missiles was likely considered insignificant.

[primus_TR]

35 minutes ago, Flyout said:

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

I haven't said there is anything better out there;  if there were,  I'd be there. DCS is the best there is.  It doesn't change the fact,  however,  that overall ecm, rwr (especially blue), iff, radar (except maybe the F4s excellent pulse radar), missile behavior implementations in DCS are imaginative suppositions, which by the way is understandable as these are top secret pieces of info. And therefore realism is targeted by ED; it is not a set in stone promise or provision in DCS. If you have no problem rearming/repairing within minutes,  then the same should apppy to other aspects.  Gameplay is a thing. 

Edited 9 hours ago by primus_TR
Typos, clarity

[Flyout]

8 minutes ago, primus_TR said:

I haven't said there is anything better out there;  if tgere were,  I'd be there. DCS is the best there is.  It doesn't change the fact,  however,  that overall ecm, rwr (especially blue), iff, radar (except maybe the F4s excellent pulse radar), missile behavior implementations in DCS are imaginary suppositions, which by the way is understandable as these are top secret pieces of info. And therefore realism is targeted by ED; it is not a set in stone promise or provision in DCS. If you have no problem rearming/repairing within minutes,  then the same should apppy to other aspects.  Gameplay is a thing. 

Overall, I agree with you, except for the missiles. The missiles in DCS are the best in any simulator. I've been following their development for many years.
Also, ED guys wrote that the MiG-29 radar is completely based on the new physics and is currently the best in the simulator. Give it a try.
We also got the completely new SPO, implemented as closely as possible to the original, and now I hope all future developments will be just as good.

Edited 9 hours ago by Flyout

[Temetre]

vor 1 Minute schrieb Dragon1-1:

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.

  And youre not wrong with that. Maybe im bad at communicating it, but I think the difference isnt quite as big as people sometimes think.

For example, is an F4 more suitable for solo operation than a Mig-21 in DCS? Sure! Yet if the Mig-21 gets AWACS support (like EWRS mod), it will immediately dominate the F4 in terms of SA. Give it real soviet style GCI and its not even funny anymore.

 

I would assume the Mig-29 has better SA than the F4 tho, aside from the RWR. Its radar is superior and so is the view out of the cockpit. Aerodynamics/thrust also helps navigating and reacting to dangerous situations. The SPO15 is a weakpoint, but it can see SARH launches I 'think', which the F4 cant.

[okopanja]

16 minutes ago, Flyout said:

You're mistaken.
The combat manual for the 9-13 aircraft (as you know, a later version than the 9-12) states the following in Russian:
When the radar is switched on, it is impossible to use the information from the SPO-15 due to its erroneous and chaotic nature.
And this isn't the only source of information prohibiting the use of SPO when the radar is switched on.

Which page is this?

[Flyout]

1 minute ago, okopanja said:

Which page is this?

347

[Temetre]

vor 16 Minuten schrieb primus_TR:

That's what I do,  as all the spo 15 does is distracting you with false warnings. 

 

Btw is it actually false warning? I thought it was more like the 21s RWR, where it just picks up radar from the entire battlefield but cant seperate them effectively. 

Outside of the own radar interference, that sounds pretty troubling.

[primus_TR]

1 minute ago, Temetre said:

 

Btw is it actually false warning? I thought it was more like the 21s RWR, where it just picks up radar from the entire battlefield but cant seperate them effectively. 

Outside of the own radar interference, that sounds pretty troubling.

Just watch the warnings.  You'll see emitters jumping around on both azimuth, distance and type. It may well be a very realistic depiction of the SPO15. I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue for our against.  But I know for a fact that it is as useless as the SPO10. I fly the Fulcrum like I do the 21: without SPO.

[Temetre]

Gerade eben schrieb primus_TR:

Just watch the warnings.  You'll see emitters jumping around on both azimuth, distance and type. It may well be a very realistic depiction of the SPO15. I'm not knowledgeable enough to argue for our against.  But I know for a fact that it is as useless as the SPO10. I fly the Fulcrum like I do the 21: without SPO.

Tbf in reality pilots apparently lowered the volume to almost minimum as well, because it just gave so many warnings.

[Dragon1-1]

13 minutes ago, Temetre said:

For example, is an F4 more suitable for solo operation than a Mig-21 in DCS? Sure! Yet if the Mig-21 gets AWACS support (like EWRS mod), it will immediately dominate the F4 in terms of SA. Give it real soviet style GCI and its not even funny anymore.

Exactly the realistic Vietnam experience. The F-4s that were covering the Thuds or other, bomb-laden F-4s had no recourse but to try to dogfight the MiGs that routinely jumped them. This is why USAF flights got their clock cleaned on a regular basis, and part of why USN got so much mileage out of TOPGUN. If you can't help but be forced into a dogfight in a BVR-capable fighter, you had better be good at dogfighting.

40 minutes ago, Flyout said:

That's why the first batch of MiG-29s didn't have countermeasures dispensers at all. They did later, but they were only intended for flares. The threat from radar missiles was likely considered insignificant.

More likely, the MiG-29 wasn't considered a likely target for radar missiles. It would either be bushwhacking NATO attack aircraft like the MiG-21 did in Vietnam (its primary role), or it would be escorting friendly bombers, in which case the bombers would be the ones soaking up radar-guided missiles (and hence they had the ECM equipment to defeat them). This is also why the MiG-29 got the helmet sight and R-73, it was envisioned primarily as a WVR combatant. Unlike modern AMRAAM boats, the threats that the MiG-29 was expected to face carried few BVR missiles and would likely try to launch them at their targets, rather than wasting them on escort fighters.

[TotenDead]

55 минут назад, Flyout сказал:

I agree.
That's why the first batch of MiG-29s didn't have countermeasures dispensers at all. They did later, but they were only intended for flares. The threat from radar missiles was likely considered insignificant.

I believe that it's not that it was considered insignificant, but that chaff in PD radar era was, and still is, close to useless. In DCS it's, of course, the other way around since 99% of our RWRs are 100% precise so you can notch anything quite easily

2 часа назад, Temetre сказал:

It depends. The F-4E RWR (ALR-46) is in some ways more advanced, one of the first digital RWRs.

Interesting info, thank you

[Flyout]

1 hour ago, TotenDead said:

I believe that it's not that it was considered insignificant, but that chaff in PD radar era was, and still is, close to useless. 

I don't think so.
If chaff were considered useless, the soviet combat manuals of the 1980-90s wouldn't have had such extensive sections devoted to chaff countermeasures tactics, both from aircraft dispensers and with special chaff rockets.

[Exorcet]

The modeling of flaws is important and desirable. The US 4th gen RWR's need a bit more fallibility themselves. Though Soviet aircraft also lack the ground support that they were designed to work with, and it sounds like the SPO issue is not a design issue but a maint one. If so it should fall under random failures and not normal use.

[AeriaGloria]

4 hours ago, Flyout said:

You're mistaken.
The combat manual for the 9-13 aircraft (as you know, a later version than the 9-12) states the following in Russian:
When the radar is switched on, it is impossible to use the information from the SPO-15 due to its erroneous and chaotic nature.
And this isn't the only source of information prohibiting the use of SPO when the radar is switched on.

Is it not possible for two different manuals fire different audiences to say slightly two different things? 

[TotenDead]

57 минут назад, AeriaGloria сказал:

Is it not possible for two different manuals fire different audiences to say slightly two different things? 

Well, the Su-27SK manual states that switching radar on jams its SPO-15, so...

2 часа назад, Flyout сказал:

I don't think so.
If chaff were considered useless, the soviet combat manuals of the 1980-90s wouldn't have had such extensive sections devoted to chaff countermeasures tactics, both from aircraft dispensers and with special chaff rockets.

How much extensive? 

[AeriaGloria]

41 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Well, the Su-27SK manual states that switching radar on jams its SPO-15, so...

How much extensive? 

The Su-27SK manual also uses the words “it is POSSIBLE when flying with radar on for SPO-15 to malfunction.”

[TotenDead]

1 час назад, AeriaGloria сказал:

The Su-27SK manual also uses the words “it is POSSIBLE when flying with radar on for SPO-15 to malfunction.”

Alright, it does say it that way. But anyway, it seems like SPOs usefullness in such situation is questionable at best

Цитата

When RLPK and L006LM are operating simultaneously, false information may be displayed on the L006LM indicator (display of bearing marks 10, 30, 50, 90 on the left and right, type X, power gradations up to 8, marks V, H, and CAPTURE). To determine the actual situation, it is necessary (if possible) to set the ILLUM-EKV-OFF switch on the RLPK control panel to the OFF position for 5-10 seconds during the search and target detection stages.

 

[AeriaGloria]

If maintenance manuals say it can be fixed, I believe them

[marmor]

I remembered this thread 4 years ago by the pilot. SPO doing its SPO things and a technician showing it could be fixed if it helps clear things out

 

And there you have the RWR being blinded by the radars, and the N019 itself too...

Edited 1 hour ago by marmor