Hate the SPO15 :/

[AeriaGloria]

2 hours ago, Flyout said:

I have not found a source where the operation of SPO together with radar is permitted.

I mean I have a 9.12-9.13 manual that doesn’t even mention it. We have a maintenance manual talking about how to fix it. Su-27SK manual uses the word “it’s possible.” We have pilots that said it never happened to them. I mean if it was really designed that way, why go to the trouble of putting in blanking circuits for radar, SPU, SOD, IFF? 

Whats the most likely? Maybe it’s functional in some aircraft and not in others……

Edited 8 hours ago by AeriaGloria

[okopanja]

6 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

The problem here is context. E. Germany only got their migs right before the wall came down. And lack of trained technicians and lack of spares likely doomed the spo-15 into its reversion state (no spo if radar on)

We also have reliable accounts where this wasn't the case in the Balkans as well as former mig 29 pilots claiming it wasn't an issue. Along with a repair manual identifying the problem and how to fix it. 

So while im sure that account is accurate, its also only valid in one specific use case. 

A bit of background.

The Wall fell in 1989. East Germany got their Mig-29s around the same time as Yugoslavia in 1987. The Yugoslav training groups of pilots and technicians started their training after the Germans finished training. The 204th regiment was mostly based in Pleso, Zagreb, where the main repair facility for the 29s was and Batajnica, Belgrade (repair facility Moma Stanojlovic at that time did not service 29s). With civil war, the main repair facility remained in Croatia. Given the chaotic nature of withdrawal from Croatia, we can not be sure that all tools and spare parts were pulled out. This also meant that significant number of trained persona who lived and worked in Zagreb were also divided (some of them moved to Belgrade, but later left and returned to Croatia). The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia got both sanctioned and embargoed, which prevented any import of spare parts or modernization, until 1995 when the Dayton accord the things got more relaxed.

The planned overhaul was supposed to start already in 1996 and be completed in 1997. Offer was received for the overhaul and upgrade (radar upgrade, R-77, Kh-29T, fixing gun/fuel tank issue, as well as possible Gardenia installation). Only radar upgrade would have brought MTBF from 50 hours to 250.

By 1998 large parts of fleet were grounded, mostly due to the failing electronics. The engines were still in good condition, but on the paper the lifetime got extended at least on 2 occasion past the time the overhaul time.

At this time the it was clear that Yugoslavia will be invaded by NATO, so desperate attempts were made to repair the fleet. Offer was received from MiG to service the boards, which were prone by failures of electrolytic capacitors. MiG has offered to service this in field, at the price of $200k per aircraft. The request was made in the 204th regiment and sent along the hierarchy, but the whole thing stalled: someone along the path with political background decided this is not needed. It should be noted that during the period 1996-1998, 2 complete Hinds were smuggled in the country for the needs of Serbian Ministry of Interior (JSO - special operation unit). Still this was rather sensitive internal political time. With Serbia and Montenegro leadership not getting along and later controlling the Ministery of Defense, I can easily see why these opportunities to bring the Migs into fully operational state were missed. Internally leader of Serbia never trusted military (e.g. prior to the war Chief of Staff Momčilo Perišić along 20+ generals got retired and replaced), so all available money got funneled into Ministry of Interior.

These "repairs" which took place at the end, were not done with official MiG support, and amounted to cannibalization of spare parts from different air-frames and improrvized repairs. The airplanes got into somewhat flyable state with breaks occurring frequently. 

You will observe that this roughly correlates with the date of the intelligence document marmor posted. I am pretty sure Germans would have experienced same kind of the issues. I have no information of they themselves did overhaul. However its worth noticing that they sold their Migs to Poland against a symbolic price in 2004, basically at the price of junk. Perhaps some Polish MiG lovers can tell us when the overhaul took place?

In 1999 war started and pilots flew in airplanes that often had failed electronics on the startup. One such case was the flight of Peric/Radosavljevic (I will prepare the story about them) and actually it might be the case of this radar/SPO bleed example. 

Peric was more experienced and was supposed to lead. On takeoff when turning on the radar he had immediate failure, and noticed that his SPO is lit like a Christmas tree (randomly blinking and beeping). He passed the lead to Radosavljevic, whose airplane appeared to work properly. I will not go deeper than this at this time.

As for this issue in documentation: in Yugoslav manual there is no mentioning on this radar/SPO bleed issue.

The document was originally published in 1990 (I assume that for 3 years they used either soviet manuals directly or had another kinds of documents to support the training and operation). The document had revisions in 1992, 1993 (large number of pages got updated at this time) with the final version in 1994. This 1994 version is what got leaked in the internet. 

It should be noted that was already 7th year of the service, so one would expect that they knew the airplane pretty well by this time, and that such limitation would have been documented.
 

Edited 7 hours ago by okopanja

[Flyout]

52 minutes ago, okopanja said:

It should be noted that was already 7th year of the service, so one would expect that they knew the airplane pretty well by this time, and that such limitation would have been documented.

It's strange they didn't see it. This limitation is documented in Russian manuals. And this is not a failure, it is a feature of the device’s operation.

[AeriaGloria]

8 minutes ago, Flyout said:

It's strange they didn't see it. This limitation is documented in Russian manuals. And this is not a failure, it is a feature of the device’s operation.

Which manuals? I’ve only seen it documented in 1 9.12/9.13 manual. And I have over 80 lol  

[Flyout]

1 hour ago, AeriaGloria said:

I mean I have a 9.12-9.13 manual that doesn’t even mention it. We have a maintenance manual talking about how to fix it. Su-27SK manual uses the word “it’s possible.”

I have a Su-27 combat manual. It says you can't trust the SPO indication when the radar is on. Yes, it shows something, but the number of false treats makes it impossible to understand the real situation.

 

[okopanja]

27 minutes ago, Flyout said:

It's strange they didn't see it. This limitation is documented in Russian manuals. And this is not a failure, it is a feature of the device’s operation.

I have seen several of them with no mentioning.

347 I could not find in them, but it sounds as if it is part of sections with updates and failures (e.g. 347 for my 9.13 is fault error table).

Might be interesting to see how Soviets maintained theirs (LOL). They tended to treat airplanes as consumables, so likely 10 year old aircraft is something that was supposed to be replaced all together. Nations with less resources were more interested in keeping them running longer, which is why MiG had upgrade options for them. In Soviet system they would simply move from 9.12 to 9.13. 

Just for the record: the 29s donated to Serbia from Russia were all wearing different liveries and were looking from outside worse than our own 29s. The Belarus did look better, but still worse.  I would not be surprised if they just decided to keep the aircrafts with known faults and updated one revision of the manual with the description of the fault.

IMHO: this is a problem that plagued the aircrafts when they reach certain age. Deterioration will occur even if you do not use them, but more frequent and aggressive usage will wear them down faster. I got an interview where the pilot state that original range of the radar got reduced down to 20-30km for detection and tracking. These birds were in a sorry state.

Even after the war the situation did not change much, with whole remaining fleet being grounded due to not having startup batteries. Around 2008 the repairs and overhaul started, with another in 2012. 

Edited 7 hours ago by okopanja

[Кош]

3 часа назад, Flyout сказал:

I have not found a source where the operation of SPO together with radar is permitted.

9.12 avionics manual, SPO-15 maintenance manual. Also SME ground technician said their pilots used SPO-15 in type-similar BVR training.

[Dragon1-1]

Maybe we should have a checkbox, then.  A brand new (or at least properly maintained) Soviet MiG-29 would have the radar working OK with the SPO-15, but for most of the jet's lifetime, it seems that it was a common problem which was very often left unfixed.

That said, if we're being consistent, this should just work. DCS doesn't simulate bad maintenance, deterioration due to conditions (big issue for F-4 and its missiles in Vietnam) and other such concerns that often determine real world performance much more than factory E-M diagrams do. 

[okopanja]

12 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That said, if we're being consistent, this should just work. DCS doesn't simulate bad maintenance, deterioration due to conditions (big issue for F-4 and its missiles in Vietnam) and other such concerns that often determine real world performance much more than factory E-M diagrams do. 

Wrong, it can be placed into faults section in ME. For those who wish to face the true challenge. Failures can be simulated in DCS, but I am not sure about degradation. E.g. change the radar range.

[TotenDead]

1 час назад, Кош сказал:

9.12 avionics manual, SPO-15 maintenance manual. Also SME ground technician said their pilots used SPO-15 in type-similar BVR training.

Can we see any documents that state that spo And radar can work simultaneously? 

[primus_TR]

53 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

That said, if we're being consistent, this should just work. DCS doesn't simulate bad maintenance, deterioration due to conditions (big issue for F-4 and its missiles in Vietnam) and other such concerns that often determine real world performance much more than factory E-M diagrams do. 

HB did that with the F4E (tickbox for reference aircraft), and I think it is a good thing to have that as an option.

[Кош]

1 час назад, TotenDead сказал:

Can we see any documents that state that spo And radar can work simultaneously? 

Бортовой комплекс самолетовождения, прицеливания и управления вооружением самолета МИГ-29Б

I mean, there is a graph of blanking signal radar casts on itself to not always show a white wall, radar transmitter and receiver never work simultaneously, although frequency of switch is very high. And what connects radar to SPO-15 is not a flimsy bool singnal cable but a big shielded high frequency cable. I can only thinking of HPRF "Front mode" self blanking.

Edited 4 hours ago by Кош

[BIGNEWY]

Folks please do not post documents without sharing a public link that shows it is 100% for the public. 

Please read our 1.16 rule 

thank you 

[Кош]

1 минуту назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

Folks please do not post documents without sharing a public link that shows it is 100% for the public. 

Please read our 1.16 rule 

thank you 

Is link to Bing search of a document ok?

[Flyout]

1 hour ago, Кош said:

9.12 avionics manual, SPO-15 maintenance manual. Also SME ground technician said their pilots used SPO-15 in type-similar BVR training.

The combat manual for 9-12 does not state anywhere that the SPO-15 can be operated with the radar turned on.

[Flyout]

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

I have seen several of them with no mentioning.

347 I could not find in them, but it sounds as if it is part of sections with updates and failures (e.g. 347 for my 9.13 is fault error table).

So you simply don't have this document.
It's Chapter 6. Use of Individual Electronic Warfare Equipment.
It's for aircraft 9-13.

 

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, Кош said:

Is link to Bing search of a document ok?

It needs to be a link to the actual released source. We all know lots of documents are leaked online so we have to be very careful about what is posted here. 

Documents that have secret classification but on a google drive link for example isn't a verified public source. 

always PM us if you are not sure

thank you 

[Harlikwin]

6 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I mean I have a 9.12-9.13 manual that doesn’t even mention it. We have a maintenance manual talking about how to fix it. Su-27SK manual uses the word “it’s possible.” We have pilots that said it never happened to them. I mean if it was really designed that way, why go to the trouble of putting in blanking circuits for radar, SPU, SOD, IFF? 

Whats the most likely? Maybe it’s functional in some aircraft and not in others……

Precisely. The only mystery is why ED modeled it as non functional in the first place. I guess exchange pilot accounts. Which seems at odds with the overall level of modeling. 

At least it should be like 2 lines of code to fix. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Harlikwin

[AeriaGloria]

3 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Folks please do not post documents without sharing a public link that shows it is 100% for the public. 

Please read our 1.16 rule 

thank you 

If this 9.12B document is an issue, I suggest you remove the upload from your server. Being on ED user files makes it seem 100% approved 

[AeriaGloria]

2 hours ago, Flyout said:

5 hours ago, Flyout said:

I have a Su-27 combat manual. It says you can't trust the SPO indication when the radar is on. Yes, it shows something, but the number of false treats makes it impossible to understand the real situation.

 

The specific wording of the Su-27 manual is this sentence 

“When the RLPK and LOO6 operate simultaneously, false information may be displayed on the L006LM indicator (displaying bearing marks 10, 30, 50, 90 from the left and right, type X, power gradation up to 8, marks B, NI CAPTURE).”

Emphasis on the word “may.” Other translators will translate it as “it is possible for false information to be displayed.” 
 

Far from conclusive “this happens 100% of the time” 

[Harlikwin]

39 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

If this 9.12B document is an issue, I suggest you remove the upload from your server. Being on ED user files makes it seem 100% approved 

Its only been hosted for a decade or so.