SPO15 feedback

[MicroShket]

12 минут назад, Flyout сказал:

What is wrong with AIM-7?

It has significant launch failure rate in 1991, when some F-15C in combat with MiG-29 wasn't able to properly apply 1/2 or even 3/4 of its missiles.

[Flyout]

18 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

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

The APG-63 radar was more advanced than the N001 in every respect. It had a more advanced antenna with lower sidelobes, a better signal-to-noise ratio, and better digital processing.
The Soviet Tikhomirov Research Institute used the APG-63 data as a specification for the development of the "Mech" radar. However, they failed to fully complete the task, and as a result, they had to create a radar based on the N019 from the MiG-29, scaling it up.

18 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

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).

You're mistaken. Interception control involved displaying control markers on the aircraft's instruments. In other words, the pilot was shown where to fly and when to turn on the radar using an indication.
Exactly the same as was later done in the USSR, including on the MiG-29.

 

3 minutes ago, MicroShket said:

It has significant launch failure rate in 1991, when some F-15C in combat with MiG-29 wasn't able to properly apply 1/2 or even 3/4 of its missiles.

All missiles in the world have a certain percentage of launch failures.

[AeriaGloria]

42 minutes ago, Flyout said:

What is wrong with AIM-7?

As ED has said, it is not up to the same standard as their newest R-27R/ER release in tens of seeker. But I don’t think it should be that hard since it already has all the advanced FM stuff done 

[MicroShket]

58 минут назад, Flyout сказал:

All missiles in the world have a certain percentage of launch failures.

How many of them have documented in-combat cases?

So, as for now in DCS we have failure-proof weapons. Same for most of RWR. But not for one specific version.

[Кош]

3 часа назад, Flyout сказал:

I hope so

I think you are wrong.

I have enough technical literature to make a statement. I don't make unfounded statements, unlike you.

First, nobody here is interested who thinks what. Only facts are appreciated.

Second, you didn't read my original post about balance. I wrote not about gameplay balance but simulation consistency putting all units in same level of application of physical laws.

Third. I never saw any real technical input from you regarding SPO. I posted an excerpt from one Soviet document citing that it works, you posted an excerpt from other Soviet document citing that it doesn't. Both claims are in words not in math and so don't matter. If you have information proving HOW it doesn't work as intended - please go ahead. 

Fourth. Intercept system for F-102 F-106 is very different from what Soviets ever did, it just has different task and function and overall phylosophy. As for GCI overall, its origin lies in Battle of Britain and it was never a secret for any state. Everybody knew it's needed, everybody developed it, it's not a big deal at all.

3 часа назад, MicroShket сказал:

It has significant launch failure rate in 1991, when some F-15C in combat with MiG-29 wasn't able to properly apply 1/2 or even 3/4 of its missiles.

It was 2 vs 2 and 1 vs 1 encounters of F-15C and MiG-25PD. In 1 vs 1 both F-15C and MiG each launched all 4 medium ranged missiles at each other with no result. All AIM-7 malfunctioned or missed and all R-40 missed or MiG had to break lock to evade.

[MicroShket]

58 минут назад, Кош сказал:

MiG-25PD

Yeah. I confused it with the events of January 19th, when pair of F-15C engaged MiG-29. Nevertheless...

[Harlikwin]

8 hours ago, Flyout said:

 

I have enough technical literature to make a statement. I don't make unfounded statements, unlike you.

Post it up. 

[okopanja]

8 hours ago, Flyout said:

I hope so

I think you are wrong.

I have enough technical literature to make a statement. I don't make unfounded statements, unlike you.

Please start with the date of the release of the page of the manual you got. So far this is the only manual that states this, while we have at least technical document also stating explicitly that SPO does not get blinded by radar.

Would be nice to have at least the exact reference so we can lookup further things. 

Edited 18 hours ago by okopanja

[Flyout]

9 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

As ED has said, it is not up to the same standard as their newest R-27R/ER release in tens of seeker. But I don’t think it should be that hard since it already has all the advanced FM stuff done 

Last year, ED reported that the AIM-7 missiles were based on a new API with new dynamics and guidance systems. Now the R-27 has reach this points too.

8 hours ago, MicroShket said:

How many of them have documented in-combat cases?

So, as for now in DCS we have failure-proof weapons. Same for most of RWR. But not for one specific version.

If you don't turn on failures in the failures panel, they won't work. In the simulator, everything is perfect and nothing breaks, neither weapons nor planes.

[Flyout]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

Please start with the date of the release of the page of the manual you got. So far this is the only manual that states this, while we have at least technical document also stating explicitly that SPO does not get blinded by radar.

Would be nice to have at least the exact reference so we can lookup further things. 

This manual is from the 1990s, when many in the Russian Federation were not afraid to share over military documents.

And this isn't the only manual. There's also a Su-27 combat manual which says pretty much the same thing.

Edited 16 hours ago by Flyout

[okopanja]

3 minutes ago, Flyout said:

This manual is from the 1990s, when many in the Russian Federation were not afraid to share over military documents.

And this isn't the only manual. There's also a Su-27 combat manual which says pretty much the same thing.

And yet you have stronger technical document stating that blanking is there and radar itself has diagram with output signal for SPO-15 blanking? 

This can not be denied by pilot's manual, yet it can be explained with deterioration of electronics.

Either in radar or in SPO-15. It should be distinguished from the time when aircraft was new and operational from the time several years later where these mechanisms did not work anymore. Hence, we need to be able to trigger those failures, but otherwise the radar and spo should behave according to their designs.

[MicroShket]

43 минуты назад, Flyout сказал:

If you don't turn on failures in the failures panel, they won't work

You shall understand very well that I'm talking about another things.

[AeriaGloria]

11 hours ago, Flyout said:

Last year, ED reported that the AIM-7 missiles were based on a new API with new dynamics and guidance systems. Now the R-27 has reach this points too.

If you don't turn on failures in the failures panel, they won't work. In the simulator, everything is perfect and nothing breaks, neither weapons nor planes.

Yet it doesn’t have the same reaction to multiple targets, chaff, and some of the other RF additions to the new R-27R/ER

Yes ED said it was on newest API last year. But now with R-27 they have further added more features and made it more realistic then any other Fox 1, and Sparrow should catch up. 

”New semiactive RF seeker provides 'multitarget' tracking feature. This means that RF signals from several distinct targets will interfere and form one bigger apparent target once they simultaneously fall into the missile tracking gate. This apparent target may lead the missile between real targets in a target group, or to dispensed chaff. It also may steal missile velocity tracking gate and break guidance”

 

Edited 5 hours ago by AeriaGloria

[Flаnker]

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 (which trigger CW circuits anyway, followed by them being disabled completely in all channels once HPRF is recognized), so if they are emitted the affected hemisphere is shut down completely. 
hope that helps clarify some points. 

thank you 

Hello. Here's a quote from the Su-27 manual:

Цитата

When operating simultaneously, the RLPK-27 and SPO-15LM may display false information on the SPO indicator (displaying bearing markers of 10, 30, 50, and 90 degrees on the left and right, type X, power gradations up to 8, and the B, H, and ZAKHVAT markers).

That is, the emergence of false information is possible, but not 100% likely.

[zerO_crash]

On 9/29/2025 at 6:55 AM, Flyout said:

You continue to perpetuate myths. The birthplace of the GCI and AWACS is the USA. They were the first to implement the F-102/106 semiautomatic intercept system back in the 1950s. This system was in use at NORAD even before the Soviets copied it.
Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment

 

 

YOU continue to spew bull<profanity>! First and foremost, re-read what I wrote! The statement is that GCI came much earlier than AWACS, period! I made no assumption as to GCI overall, other than stating that USSR pulled the initiative to a much later point, capability wise! Three, USA was absolutely NOT the birthplace of GCI. You slept in class at that time, but during WWII and The Battle for Brittain, UK famously used a national and unified radar system in order to coordinate its air force to down Nazi German aircraft. US wasn't even the second country to make use of GCI, as Germans were also making early attempts (learnung from UK) at a national coordinated defense initarive concerning ground radar stations and own fighter/interceptor aircraft. That's that!

 

(If I'm to be perfectly honest with you, read about what constituates a source of a primary, and thereafter, degree, and then as such, contribute with something more reliable than Wiki. We can stick to your level until you catch up on this.)

 

I also recognize that "Later additions ..." to the SAGE system actually featured the onboard equipment for F-106 to recieve automated (one-way) telemetry regarding rargets intented for a unit. I saw an earlier systems diagram, pre- use of such a reciever (early on, it was all radio comms as stated by me). May I stand corrected. Still, this was neither the thread, nor the discussion. I suggest again, that you stick to it. (I won't repeat what's written, but you seem to be arguing with yourself.)

Edited 29 minutes ago by zerO_crash

[zerO_crash]

On 9/29/2025 at 7:05 AM, Flyout said:

The APG-63 radar was more advanced than the N001 in every respect. It had a more advanced antenna with lower sidelobes, a better signal-to-noise ratio, and better digital processing.
The Soviet Tikhomirov Research Institute used the APG-63 data as a specification for the development of the "Mech" radar. However, they failed to fully complete the task, and as a result, they had to create a radar based on the N019 from the MiG-29, scaling it up.

You are going to have to produce a source for that statement. Particularly about the "failiure" part. I don't take you seriously on the initial one, as you are giving baseless arguments. What was more advanced, and in what specific way?! How does that contribute to the efficiency of a radar, and in what condition. Just to disprove what you just stated; one specific place where the APG-63 wasn't any superior to the N001, was automatization. Based on flight manuals and available information, both aircraft have a very similar part for attaining, what is today regarded as, a kill chain. Both aircraft have very similar workings (from the operator perspective) when it comes to finding a target, identifying it, locking it on and finally, engaging. I see no evidence whatsoever of either one or the other being ahead in this department. (This does not conclude the underlying operation, as scanning time vs. volume of air, ability to operate in ECM-heavy environment, or other peculiarities). The integration of a datalink feature on Su-27, is yet another part of the whole sensor suite which APG-63 doesn't have. Want me to go on?
 

You are obviously out of your league. Throwing around "lobes" and "more advanced" is pointless, unless you trully understand what's talked about here. Also, "specificity" is a coin term here.

On 9/29/2025 at 7:05 AM, Flyout said:

You're mistaken. Interception control involved displaying control markers on the aircraft's instruments. In other words, the pilot was shown where to fly and when to turn on the radar using an indication.
Exactly the same as was later done in the USSR, including on the MiG-29.

I replied to this already, but just to show you that you are again incorrect. SAGE was by any means impressive, especially given the early and advanced it was. However, it becomes ludicrous to compare to a mid-/late- Cold War GCI which is not only two-way (and inter-flight, meaning interceptors exchanging information with one another), but also relatively advanced functionalitu like guiding the missiles for a particular flight/aircraft... yeah. Let's throw away the bias, and consider the systems at hand. Though not in this thread.