SPO15 feedback

[AeriaGloria]

Sooooooo SPO-15……..

[Кош]

В 23.09.2025 в 17:45, BIGNEWY сказал:

As for synchronization with radar, SPO-15 features a synchronization circuit on board 51, but it was designed for older radars such Sapfir-23. The principle of operation is the same as in older SPO-10, the receivers are blocked in rhythm with own radar's pulses. It cannot handle CW or HPRF signals

SPO-15 is tested for blocking with simulated signal generator at 500 KHz. HPRF of N019 is 160 KHz. To know what's going on we need to know how blanking signal at KJ1 line actually looks like at graph, and how does it relate to PRF.

Edited 23 hours ago by Кош

[AeriaGloria]

MPRF is only 16-30 kHz! 

[okopanja]

32 minutes ago, Кош said:

SPO-15 is tested for blocking with simulated signal generator at 500 KHz. HPRF of N019 is 160 KHz. To know what's going on we need to know how blanking signal at KJ1 line actually looks like at graph, and how does it relate to PRF.

L006 label on output line inside radar document, tells us that radar was designed with SPO-15 in mind.

[AeriaGloria]

Okay one last question about SPO other then if 16-30 kHz MPRF really can’t he blanked 

The Su-27SK manual says with radar on you get front hemisphere warning and X category with strength of 5-8 signal strength. 
 

The one MiG-29 manual mentioning radar interfering SPO says it causes “chaotic” readings. 
 

Why is ours shut off then? I would think with 5-8 signal strength of X category, there is still possibility that a higher strength radar could become priority. 

[Thirsty]

4 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

Okay one last question about SPO other then if 16-30 kHz MPRF really can’t he blanked 

The Su-27SK manual says with radar on you get front hemisphere warning and X category with strength of 5-8 signal strength. 
 

The one MiG-29 manual mentioning radar interfering SPO says it causes “chaotic” readings. 
 

Why is ours shut off then? I would think with 5-8 signal strength of X category, there is still possibility that a higher strength radar could become priority. 

Since it was the easiest to make without properly modelling it, that's what it feels like at this current moment, and how most of this topic is being ignored.
There are so many documents and SMEs that proves the complete opposite that what is implamented.
I would rather have the "chaotic" readings in HPRF, and properply working RWR in MPRF
Insted of being blasted by an aircraft that we don't even know that is locking.
Currently a MiG-21 has more SA than a way more advnaced MiG-29.

But hey, more importantly that all other jets have magic rwr that detects things that it shouldn't even, but the SPO can't even work with it's radar on (that was designed to operate it)
 

Edited 14 hours ago by Thirsty

[Flyout]

On 9/26/2025 at 2:05 PM, Кош said:

Problem is 3 out of 4 Sparrows don't fall from rail to the ground in DCS like during Desert Storm. Either we get everything to factory spec or everything to how it behaved in the hands of military, but "everything for my friends, law for the rest" just doesn't work.

You seem to have misunderstood the game. Balancing isn't DСS's job. Every developer here strives to make the aircraft model closer to reality. And if that's how reality works, there's no point in distorting it to make things more convenient for some players.

[Kuky]

33 minutes ago, Flyout said:

You seem to have misunderstood the game. Balancing isn't DСS's job. Every developer here strives to make the aircraft model closer to reality. And if that's how reality works, there's no point in distorting it to make things more convenient for some players.

Actually you are wrong on this, in fact when it comes to both a game and realism, ED should in fact strive towards balance, and balance not meaning to make every jet working the same, but making a standard across all modules in terms of modelling of FM, avionics, damage, weapons etc... and not have one module done this way, while others the other way. Doing so IMHO just creates BIAS and away from realism, because realism doesn't just mean one thing being done realistically, while others which it is interacting with, are not.

PS: I for one, do not accept that SPO-15 was done properly as I just can't believe Russian engineers would have designed this system this way. To model the system to always have some possible issues due to maintenance etc as if it was designed to work this way all the time, is just wrong and it seems this is how MiG-19A RWR has been modelled which is not alright.

Edited 12 hours ago by Kuky

[Flyout]

On 9/27/2025 at 5:24 AM, zerO_crash said:

As to peak power - that is a simplified metric. Peak, means most often "not sustained". How long can it hold the peak, before overheating? What's the sustained power output, and how does it stack up against Su-27S's? Again, anything non-metric (numbers) is a best guess, and that seldomly conforms with reality. 

The average power of the APG-63 is also greater than the average power of the N001: 2 kW versus 1.5 kW.

On 9/27/2025 at 5:24 AM, zerO_crash said:

(Even though west started getting AWACS at some point and ground radar stations, it never had anything like the infrastructure that USSR had. It becomes wrong then to judge an aircraft vs. aircraft without taking into consideration the whole ideology, as it gives a skewed perspective of the contemporaries.).

You don't know history well. The first AWACS appeared in the US and were used during the Vietnam War, at a time when the USSR was still only considering it.
The SAGE semiautomatic interceptor guidance system also first appeared in the US on F-102/106 aircraft. And after that, the Soviets began copying it, developing their own VOZDUKH systems.

 

[okopanja]

1 minute ago, Flyout said:

The average power of the APG-63 is also greater than the average power of the N001: 2 kW versus 1.5 kW.

You don't know history well. The first AWACS appeared in the US and were used during the Vietnam War, at a time when the USSR was still only considering it.
The SAGE semiautomatic interceptor guidance system also first appeared in the US on F-102/106 aircraft. And after that, the Soviets began copying it, developing their own VOZDUKH systems.

 

I appreciate and respect your passion, but please stay on the topic.

[Flyout]

13 minutes ago, Kuky said:

Actually you are wrong on this, in fact when it comes to both a game and realism, ED should in fact strive towards balance, and balance not meaning to make every jet working the same, but making a standard across all modules in terms of modelling of FM, avionics, damage, weapons etc... and not have one module done this way, while others the other way. Doing so IMHO just creates BIAS and away from realism, because realism doesn't just mean one thing being done realistically, while others which it is interacting with, are not.

If you're looking for balance, you can find it in plenty of other games. A simulator is designed to simulate the technology as it was, not how some players wants it to be.

13 minutes ago, Kuky said:

PS: I for one, do not accept that SPO-15 was done properly as I just can't believe Russian engineers would have designed this system this way. To model the system to always have some possible issues due to maintenance etc as if it was designed to work this way all the time, is just wrong and it seems this is how MiG-19A RWR has been modelled which is not alright.

You can believe what you want, but in reality, all systems have their limitations. And electronic intelligence systems have many of them too. As for the SPO-15, there's nothing surprising about it. The Soviets were never strong in electronics and lagged behind the US by a decade.

[Kuky]

4 minutes ago, Flyout said:

If you're looking for balance, you can find it in plenty of other games. A simulator is designed to simulate the technology as it was, not how some players wants it to be.

You can believe what you want, but in reality, all systems have their limitations. And electronic intelligence systems have many of them too. As for the SPO-15, there's nothing surprising about it. The Soviets were never strong in electronics and lagged behind the US by a decade.

First of all, I repeat again that by balance I am referring to having ALL systems of ALL aircraft modelled by same standards, meaning if MiG-29A RWR is modelled with flaws, then all other aircraft need to be done the same (but they are not), not to mention the flaws put into this RWR are put as the way the system was designed to function by default, and this is just wrong, I don't care what you believe in, I have noticed that you have that typical western bias against Russian/Soviet (and I think I am safe to assume Chinese also) anything, and second because of this you don't seem to add anything valuable with your comments.

[AeriaGloria]

8 minutes ago, Kuky said:

First of all, I repeat again that by balance I am referring to having ALL systems of ALL aircraft modelled by same standards, meaning if MiG-29A RWR is modelled with flaws, then all other aircraft need to be done the same (but they are not), not to mention the flaws put into this RWR are put as the way the system was designed to function by default, and this is just wrong, I don't care what you believe in, I have noticed that you have that typical western bias against Russian/Soviet (and I think I am safe to assume Chinese also) anything, and second because of this you don't seem to add anything valuable with your comments.

I will countdown the days until western RWR is overhauled and AIM-7 to same standard 

[TotenDead]

В 27.09.2025 в 04:24, zerO_crash сказал:

As to peak power - that is a simplified metric. Peak, means most often "not sustained". How long can it hold the peak, before overheating?

You don't hold it. The radar sends a short radio signal with X power, then stops illumination and waits for the return, collects the signal, processes it and so on. Then sends the signal again. As you could see from the MiG-29 and spo-15 documents here, the latter is synchronized with such radar pulses. One pulse is the peak power, the very same pulse devided on its Length + all the time between the pulses is average (sustained, whatever) power

В 27.09.2025 в 04:24, zerO_crash сказал:

 (Even though west started getting AWACS at some point and ground radar stations, it never had anything like the infrastructure that USSR had. 

It always had waaay-way more AWACS planes, so... So we probably can say that while the MiG should have cgi support, the Western aircraft should have AWACS one

В 27.09.2025 в 04:24, zerO_crash сказал:

As a side note; as much as the ED MiG-29A (ASM) introduced the real MiG-29 with all its features and limitations, I do believe that the community will benefit from having a real F-15C modelled. That just to clear up the confusion from the FC3 fantasy.

Benefit - probably. But don't expect it to be a MiG-29 competitor, it'll be just another mid 2000s bluefor amraam slinger

Edited 9 hours ago by TotenDead

[zerO_crash]

47 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

You don't hold it. The radar sends a short radio signal with X power, then stops illumination and waits for the return, collects the signal, processes it and so on. Then sends the signal again. As you could see from the MiG-29 and spo-15 documents here, the latter is synchronized with such radar pulses. One pulse is the peak power, the very same pulse devided on its Length + all the time between the pulses is average (sustained, whatever) power

I am aware of the underlying logic, but at what frequency does this happen? Obviously, tens of times a second. In an ECM environment, the radar has to work longer at peak and sustained power in order to obtain a target. Again, how does it affect the electronics for the duration required?

 

47 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

It always had waaay-way more AWACS planes, so... So we probably can say that while the MiG should have cgi support, the Western aircraft should have AWACS one

On 9/27/2025 at 3:24 AM, zerO_crash said:

It is true that west has had more AWACS than east (afterall, US is the nation that requires a fully mobile force in order to virtually go anywhere (oceans on both sides of the continent)). That said, GCI was available way before AWACS, and US never had anywhere near the datalink/intercept capabilities that Soviets had. It's a pretty major capability to be able to infercept a target based on GCI telemetry, with your own radar in passive mode. It gets even worse, when you know that R-27T/ET can get you at BVR ranges, and that, covertly.

 

47 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Benefit - probably. But don't expect it to be a MiG-29 competitor, it'll be just another mid 2000s bluefor amraam slinger

That's a DCS/open source peculiarity where west discloses more. While I agree, that it is a much later iteration of a F-15 (C, not A - same aa F-16 btw...), I still do know for a fact that it will be morw difficult to learn and operate. While more automated electronics are in place, with realistic settings (radar, HOTAS, generally cockpit), you'll have to better understand the aircraft you fly in order to utilize it. That goes for use of onboard systems, that goes for radar competence and what works where and how. 
 

F-14 has a pretty good radar for its time, yet, being proficient at using it requires you to dedicate yourself to that rear seat as if it was a separate module itself. I haven't come across anyone who has been proficient with it yet. Same with AH-64D, surprisingly not as popular of a module as one would think. Why? - because it's too advanced for the common head to wrap around. F-15 with ASM, should be very much that. You have a decent amount of capability, but bringing it to good use, is not a point-and-click exercise. 
 

(Some westeners are surprised at how advanced MiG-29 is in its systems, and seek a simplification (FC3) already. Good luck with F-15 and some 34 HOTAS bindings x3 (Air/Ground/Cruise) alone...). 

Edited 8 hours ago by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

3 hours ago, Flyout said:

The average power of the APG-63 is also greater than the average power of the N001: 2 kW versus 1.5 kW.

On 9/27/2025 at 3:24 AM, zerO_crash said:

Again, very basic metric. Tells you nothing about for how long it can hold that power level and in what conditions.

 

3 hours ago, Flyout said:

You don't know history well. The first AWACS appeared in the US and were used during the Vietnam War, at a time when the USSR was still only considering it.
The SAGE semiautomatic interceptor guidance system also first appeared in the US on F-102/106 aircraft. And after that, the Soviets began copying it, developing their own VOZDUKH systems.

 

Apparently I do know it very well, as we're not comparing who was first in terms of a singular (or few) systems, but rather how expansive it was, and how well i corporated. We already derailed from a thread on SPO-15, so let's not hijack it further, but do know that SAGE was a system meant to synthesize a large amount of data from a multitude of sensors (radars) and project it on a general map of the world. That data still had to be verbally transferred to the pilots. It's strength lie in the collection of all data, supposed easy to read translation as well as automation with ground SAM sites. Soviets' however, took that a step further and integrated such automation on their planes. This was done in secrecy pre MiG-21 era. (Let's also not forget, that the radar, was a British invention, same as e.g. the jet engine).

 

Anyways, if you wish to talk about this in depth, shoot me a PM.

[Muchocracker]

6 hours ago, Kuky said:

First of all, I repeat again that by balance I am referring to having ALL systems of ALL aircraft modelled by same standards, meaning if MiG-29A RWR is modelled with flaws, then all other aircraft need to be done the same (but they are not), not to mention the flaws put into this RWR are put as the way the system was designed to function by default, and this is just wrong, I don't care what you believe in, I have noticed that you have that typical western bias against Russian/Soviet (and I think I am safe to assume Chinese also) anything, and second because of this you don't seem to add anything valuable with your comments.

The entire point of the new SPO-15 model was laying the ground work for a higher fidelity RWR simulation across the entire game. ED has said it numerous times. You're acting like it's a permanent unique implementation that will never exist elsewhere. 

[Кош]

8 часов назад, Flyout сказал:

You seem to have misunderstood the game. Balancing isn't DСS's job. Every developer here strives to make the aircraft model closer to reality. And if that's how reality works, there's no point in distorting it to make things more convenient for some players.

No. You are very wrong factually but it's not a subject of this thread, I suggest not to continue.

[TotenDead]

6 часов назад, zerO_crash сказал:

I am aware of the underlying logic, but at what frequency does this happen? Obviously, tens of times a second. In an ECM environment, the radar has to work longer at peak and sustained power in order to obtain a target. Again, how does it affect the electronics for the duration required?

If the radar illuminates longer its receiving period also becomes longer. I'd say that average power would stay the same for any possible situation. 

And there is no sustained power, it's not an aircraft engine, you know. It illuminates at 100% power and then kinda stops working to receive and process. So, if peak power is 2kWt has Length of T and it takes 3T between the peaks the average power would be 2/4 = 500 Watt

 

6 часов назад, zerO_crash сказал:

 

(Some westeners are surprised at how advanced MiG-29 is in its systems, and seek a simplification (FC3) already. Good luck with F-15 and some 34 HOTAS bindings x3 (Air/Ground/Cruise) alone...). 

Well, people managed to learn the F-16/18 so they'll probably make it through a less complicated aircraft

[MicroShket]

11 часов назад, Flyout сказал:

Every developer here

Weapons is ED's responsibility. So, if ED makes ultra realistic RWR for MiG-29, they still could update it for other aircraft. Same for mentioned AIM-7 failures.

Edited 1 hour ago by MicroShket