SPO15 feedback

[Harlikwin]

10 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

5 hours ago, foxbat155 said:

SPO-15 wasn't designed for Saphir radar at all. Sorry, but this is bull<profanity> story..... This system was created for attack aircrafts....and the first Soviet aircraft fitted from oem with SPO-15 was Su-17M3 in 1976......

SU-24 also has a MPRF attack radar suite that seems to work fine with it as well, in case anyone wants to go down that rabbit hole. 

Edited Thursday at 12:41 AM by Harlikwin

[AeriaGloria]

What we need to find evidence of is not the 9th document saying “it has a radar blanker!” Becuase ED agrees with. 
 

ED’s premise is that the radar blanker can’t sufficiently deal with MPRF/HPRF from the factory. That’s what we need to find evidence for if we want things to change. Or otherwise some bulletproof SME evidence. 

[суховей]

В 22.09.2025 в 01:47, TotenDead сказал:

В 22.09.2025 в 00:39, 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.

Manual SU-27SK said "False information may be displayed", not " Malfunction ". 

It's wrong translating and understanding. 

Manual prove  that SPO-15 DO NOT SHUTDOWN  by the radar, only false information may occur. 

Here is original pages of the manual:

Here is correct translating:

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.

Edited yesterday at 07:47 AM by суховей

[AeriaGloria]

5 hours ago, суховей said:

Manual SU-27SK said "False information may be displayed", not " Malfunction ". 

It's wrong translating and understanding. 

Manual prove  that SPO-15 DO NOT SHUTDOWN  by the radar, only false information may occur. 

Here is original pages of the manual:

Here is correct translating:

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.

It wasn’t false translation but bad paraphrasing by memory. I remember it said “may happen”

Edited yesterday at 12:24 PM by AeriaGloria

[Pavlin_33]

I honestly don't understand how come this is not enough. Both manuals (27 & 29) use the word "may", so at least there should be some sort of random probability of this happening, which would re-set once the radar emissions are off.

[суховей]

ED said, that some hardware component of SPO-15 was designed for older sapphire-23 radar and because that, SPO  must shut down.

This manual prove, that SPO-15 working with more modern and capable SU-27 radar than Mig-29 radar without shut down. Only just false information may happen. 

I think ED should turn on SPO in forward hemisphere with modelling of false information.

 EDIT. Modelling of false indication may be randomly. Sometime indication is false, sometime true. 

Can ED provide an answer to these data from the SU-27 user manual? Will they make any changes to the module?

Edited yesterday at 10:09 AM by суховей

[Кош]

3 часа назад, суховей сказал:

ED said, that some hardware component of SPO-15 was designed for older sapphire-23 radar

This is a fantasy. 1. It was not designed to work with any specific radar. 2. It's debunked by SPO-15LM service charts for exploitation engineer.

[BIGNEWY]

8 minutes ago, Кош said:

This is a fantasy. 1. It was not designed to work with any specific radar. 2. It's debunked by SPO-15LM service charts for exploitation engineer.

We do not agree with your interpretation, but I will ask the team to share more in a future post further to what I have already posted in this thread.  

Thank you 

[суховей]

12 минут назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

We do not agree with your interpretation, but I will ask the team to share more in a future post further to what I have already posted in this thread.  

Thank you 

Could you please also comment this one post

and this one 

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/379025-spo15-feedback/page/13/#findComment-5704808

post? 

Edited yesterday at 12:47 PM by суховей

[Кош]

23 минуты назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

We do not agree with your interpretation, but I will ask the team to share more in a future post further to what I have already posted in this thread.  

Thank you 

Your big post does not tell anything technically about sync. Single mention of sync frequency I ever met in SPO documents is 500 kiloherz of sync tester. Which is way above HPRF of N019. It's reported to work with threats of up to 125 kHz PRF, apparently considering anything above continous. But why it's tested in 500 kHz blanking? I would appreciate a techical answer with numbers.

Edited yesterday at 12:57 PM by Кош

[AeriaGloria]

To me I’m surprised that manual says chaotic readings but we don’t have that. And that MPRF works just as badly 

[okopanja]

20 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We do not agree with your interpretation, but I will ask the team to share more in a future post further to what I have already posted in this thread.  

Thank you 

Which cassette is actually supposed to do the blanking?

[BIGNEWY]

10 minutes ago, Кош said:

Your big post does not tell anything about sync.

Yes I understand, I was just linking what we have already posted, we will add more in a future post. 

 

 

14 minutes ago, суховей said:

Could you please also comment this one

and this one

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/379025-spo15-feedback/page/13/#findComment-5704808

post? 

Please understand we studied the same documents people have shared here and studied information that is available on the circuits, I have asked the team to present more information in a future post to help try to better understand what we have done and why.

Currently some of the information being used here in this thread is to vague, and not enough to act on. But we will continue to study and if we need to make changes we will. If you have study level public information feel free to DM me, I am happy to continue sharing data with the team. 

thank you 

[суховей]

2 часа назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

Currently some of the information being used here in this thread is to vague, and not enough to act on.

Just for information. 

Real MiG-29 pilot confirm, that in real life SPO do not shutdown by the radar. But often there is haotic indication. 

 

Edited yesterday at 03:36 PM by суховей

[суховей]

5 часов назад, BIGNEWY сказал:

But we will continue to study and if we need to make changes we will. If you have study level public information feel free to DM me, I am happy to continue sharing data with the team. 

I have a tutorial for SPO-15 that I downloaded from the internet.

 

Does it make sense to share it, or does the ED team already have it?

EDIT. ED team has already this book.. 

Edited yesterday at 06:12 PM by суховей

[BIGNEWY]

Just now, суховей said:

I have a tutorial for SPO-15 that I downloaded from the internet.

 

Does it make sense to share it, or does the ED team already have it?

please dm if you have documents, do not post them in public, we can only use public information and I can not verify if that one is public. 

thank you 

[Dudikoff]

9 hours ago, суховей said:

Manual SU-27SK said "False information may be displayed", not " Malfunction ". 

It's wrong translating and understanding. 

Manual prove  that SPO-15 DO NOT SHUTDOWN  by the radar, only false information may occur. 

From what I can tell, this is basically what ED have been saying based on the Polish SPO-15LM technical documents - there is a blanking circuit which is supposed to block SPO-15LM receiving transmissions while its radar is transmitting (to prevent spillover). But, because it doesn't support all the frequencies used by the MiG-29 radar (and I guess Su-27), the SPO-15LM remains on and generates wrong information based on the spillover. So, to get a clear picture of the frontal hemisphere, you need to manually switch the radar off for 5-10 seconds to remove these false readings.

Edited yesterday at 04:46 PM by Dudikoff

[JediMaster]

I will accept this as long as the AI Mig-29s are now oblivious to AMRAAM/Phoenix/any ARH shots from behind/BVR that they won't visually ID. If I'm in an Su-33 or MiG-29S and launch an R-77 at it, it should likewise be ignorant. 

They should fly along dumb and happy and let the missiles impact them. Giving AI MiG-29As better SA and tools than the human players is inconsistent. As it is it seems the AI R-27Rs beat human launched ones in accuracy/PK/ability to maintain lock by a huge factor as well.

THAT is what irritates me most. If you're giving me a reasonably accurate MiG-29, don't give the AI a simcade version! 

Obviously an early 1980s MiG-29 is totally outclassed by 21st century jets and missiles. So don't give the AI a late-upgraded MiG-29A that is more survivable but insist on us having a period-accurate one. That means the MiG-29 is only usable against F-14A/Viper/Hornet pre-1990/pre-AMRAAM with the AIM54 the only realistic "super weapon" allowed. Fine for a period-specific mission in a campaign or single mission, useless in something like a Foothold/TTI/etc MP server.

The OTHER solution is a toggle. "Realistic" MiG-29A for those accurate scenarios, "upgraded" MiG-29As like those in service just before they were retired that are simply allowed to detect/jam 21st century jets for mixed era MP servers...which I guess would mean using the Flaming Cliffs MiG-29A RWR?

 

Otherwise, it's just saying "no REDFOR jets but FC ones are survivable against the current teen-series fighters, sorry!" The MiG-29A was designed against F-15A/F-16A/F/A-18A, not what we have in DCS. A real threat to the F-4E and an F-14A if closer than 20 miles, but otherwise completely outclassed target practice unless you sneak WVR.

There's a reason they were either retired or upgraded and not still in use in 1980's setup in 2025, just like the F-4Es.

[суховей]

1 час назад, Dudikoff сказал:

the SPO-15LM remains on and generates wrong information based on the spillover.

The key is "remains on" but not shutdown as we see in DCS. 

[Schmidtfire]

Even if ED changes the SPO-15LM the end result will pretty much be the same. No launch warning and instead with false information in the forward hemisphere.

So how to make the situational awareness better for the FF MIG-29A pilots? Proper GCI implementation.

Not only giving steering commands but also radio the pilot with warning if a missile launch is spotted.     

 

[0minutes]

On 10/5/2025 at 3:40 AM, Muchocracker said:

From the most recent wags video https://youtu.be/HyiWR8UYfS4

 

 

When Matt said that, was he saying that ALL MiG-29 9.12s had unsynchronised RWR/Radar functions?

Or was he refering the exact particular MiG-29 9.12 ED used as reference, meaning the one that had synchronisation issues.

If its the latter, that would suggest we are getting a broken MiG-29 with unserviced RWR/Radar synchronisation. From what I've read and seen others cite, the MiG-29 9.12 did have RWR/Radar synchronisation which leads me to believe ED based their model off an unserviced, broken MiG-29 that wasn't fully capable/operational.

In that case, why not model a factory new MiG-29 in the way the soviets originally designed it to be. From a realism point of view, modelling an unserviced and broken jet seems inconsistent, especially when "fictional for convinience" features include things like unhistorical english HUD/HDd etc. Having a realistic RWR/Radar operation function modelled as "fictional" would be nice if you ask me. And for those who want the hardcore experience add an option for it in the special tab.

Edited 2 hours ago by 0minutes

[okopanja]

5 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

From what I can tell, this is basically what ED have been saying based on the Polish SPO-15LM technical documents - there is a blanking circuit which is supposed to block SPO-15LM receiving transmissions while its radar is transmitting (to prevent spillover). But, because it doesn't support all the frequencies used by the MiG-29 radar (and I guess Su-27), the SPO-15LM remains on and generates wrong information based on the spillover. So, to get a clear picture of the frontal hemisphere, you need to manually switch the radar off for 5-10 seconds to remove these false readings.

Blanking is separate from launch detection. Blanking happens very early in processing, before it gets to the fancy things like counting impulses and measuring intervals.

[Harlikwin]

12 hours ago, суховей said:

ED said, that some hardware component of SPO-15 was designed for older sapphire-23 radar and because that, SPO  must shut down.

This manual prove, that SPO-15 working with more modern and capable SU-27 radar than Mig-29 radar without shut down. Only just false information may happen. 

I think ED should turn on SPO in forward hemisphere with modelling of false information.

 EDIT. Modelling of false indication may be randomly. Sometime indication is false, sometime true. 

Can ED provide an answer to these data from the SU-27 user manual? Will they make any changes to the module?

SPO-15 was modular and cassete based to interface with different jets which all had different blanking requirements for radars, IFF, radios, DL etc, so the Sapfir-23 thing makes no sense, the mig29 had to have its own "interface" card as it used different IFF, radios etc as well. 

[Harlikwin]

14 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Blanking is separate from launch detection. Blanking happens very early in processing, before it gets to the fancy things like counting impulses and measuring intervals.

Exactly.

From what I can determine. The blanker board basically is just programmed to turn off the input to the SPO in 3 microsecond intervals (the length of the TX of the N019). This isn't hard to do its a very simple on/off circuit. The issue seems to be "synching" that with the radar itself. Because if its off by a few tens of nanoseconds that signal will get detected as a strong X band signal. This is the cause of the "spurious" signals as described in above manuals and quotes. So thats something that "MAY" happen. In a well tuned set or system it wont. The whole it just shuts off totally might be some "self protect" mode for the SPO if the radar goes out of synch entirely. 

Given the lack of spare parts in the 90's and 2000's for this, its very easy to believe ED's SME's jets were just broken, because you don't really need an RWR in peactime. They probably just turned the whole thing off. BUT, its not how it would work in a perfectly maintained jet, which is the DCS standard for every other module. Like I'm sure the F4 RWR was probably janky AF at times when maintenance didn't do their job due to lack of parts/time. But it works "as it should" in DCS.

 

[Harlikwin]

3 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Even if ED changes the SPO-15LM the end result will pretty much be the same. No launch warning and instead with false information in the forward hemisphere.

So how to make the situational awareness better for the FF MIG-29A pilots? Proper GCI implementation.

Not only giving steering commands but also radio the pilot with warning if a missile launch is spotted.     

 

This is a separate issue. And well at a guess we won't have AI GCI or whatever its going to be for a while. I'd  much rather have a SPO that actually works when the radar is on, even though having used it a bunch with the radar off, its fairly sus/useless anyway, but its modeled correctly in that regard as far as I can tell. The whole it doesn't work with the radar on is the main point of contention.