SPO15 feedback

[Muchocracker]

Sparrow/phoenix semi active illumination is HPRF PDI

9 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

And the C category is probably because it uses LPRF Pulse mode to keep target in track as the HPRF PD mode might lose track when the target turns to the side or to run away.

More modern PD radars would use MPRF here.

Which again wouldnt happen automatically and may be something the AI does. I would reccomend retesting with a player controlled aircraft. 

[AeriaGloria]

57 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

Sparrow/phoenix semi active illumination is HPRF PDI

Which again wouldnt happen automatically and may be something the AI does. I would reccomend retesting with a player controlled aircraft. 

You’re saying F-14 uses PD for Sparrow F/M/Phoenix illumination, AND the RIO/AI can flip a CWI switch, correct? 
 

Unfortunately don’t have many friends flying the F-14 lol

[Muchocracker]

1 hour ago, AeriaGloria said:

You’re saying F-14 uses PD for Sparrow F/M/Phoenix illumination, AND the RIO/AI can flip a CWI switch, correct? 
 

Unfortunately don’t have many friends flying the F-14 lol

i had it backwards nvm. It's defaulted to CW with manual selection for PD. 

[AeriaGloria]

Interesting. I did find something in manual that could be a cause for this as well 

ED manual says that if SPO-15 sees a CW signal and a LPRF (category ‘C’) signal on the same azimuth, it is confused as a P category as long as both signals operate in same mode. 
 

I hear F-14 uses a second TWT for CW, idk about PD, and it was mentioned earlier about using LPRF to keep track during low closure rate. 
 

If PD can be manually activated, perhaps then we see what we see for other 4th gen’s, where we finally see a properly identified MPRF/HPRF “F” category. 
 

“If a continuous wave radar is detected on the same azimuth as a type С radar, and both operate

in the same mode (search or track), they might be falsely identified as a single type П radar - the

pilot must exercise their judgement to determine if the type П warning is legitimate or a false

positive. If the type П is selected as priority, it prevents types Х and С from being displayed at all

if present. If the two radars operate in different modes, the device has provisions to filter out false

type П indication, so in practice this will only happen when both radars are tracking

(as simultaneous illumination by both radars in search mode is unlikely).”

Edited October 22 by AeriaGloria

[Lyrode]

If this SPO does have trouble with hprf emission, what about mprf in pursuit mode and Coop mode?

[AeriaGloria]

9 hours ago, Lyrode said:

If this SPO does have trouble with hprf emission, what about mprf in pursuit mode and Coop mode?

I get the feeling ED is referring to MPRF even as HPRF, basically, anything above LPRF, which was normal until the pulse Doppler age. 
 

Would love if anyone could tell me if this is feasible. SPO-15 in game shows same signal strength from front and rear antennas, however rear antennas are slightly weaker. 
 

I can upon a mention in a document about the bomber version of Beryoza which uses 16 identical azimuth antennas, so different then ours. However it says this equalizes signal strength between adjacent zones, so I wonder if this causing the equal signal strength, if it is in fact a real characteristic. Also helps explain why 85-95 degree emitter only does up close close beyond just being in side lobes. 

“The station is equipped with protection against false triggering of the receiving channels by weak signals received on the side lobes of the azimuth antennas. To achieve this, the input signals of all 16 channels are summed, the resulting signal is inverted, attenuated by a factor of Kpod, and fed as a suppression signal to the input circuits of all channels (Fig. 3). Signals received on the main lobes are attenuated slightly, while weak signals are suppressed. The gain of the suppression circuit, Kpod, is selected such that the signal reception areas of one sector and two adjacent sectors are equal.”

[Temetre]

Interesting discussion. Im surprised there wasnt much consideration that the SPO/radar conflict might just be a design flaw. Even if this version of the SPO was made to work with the radar, there can be unintended issues in the final implementation. And with analogue hardware the fix might be difficult, even if the problem doesnt get burried by politics or concerns over cost.

Such a problem might be hard to understand looking at the plane from our perspective. The Mig-29 is obviously not design to have this flaw, nor might it have been fully understood, so its not gonna be an included issue in every manual.

Assuming its realistic, Im glad shortcomings like this are modelled, it makes modules feel more real and teaches you something about the technology behind our aircrafts. Love that aspect of the F-4E Phantom, with all its weird quirks.

And I do hope other RWRs are improved as well. Its a mistake to frame this as a 'blue vs red' thing; Tomcat pilots are annoyed at the F16/18s uncanny ability to notch all the time, while the F16 RWR is otherwise a lot less capable than the real thing.

[TotenDead]

Doesn't the SPO-15 have digital brains? 

[AeriaGloria]

17 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Doesn't the SPO-15 have digital brains? 

You could say it’s a digital analog hybrid. Atleast the data processing is digital. 

[F-2]

10 hours ago, Temetre said:

Interesting discussion. Im surprised there wasnt much consideration that the SPO/radar conflict might just be a design flaw. Even if this version of the SPO was made to work with the radar, there can be unintended issues in the final implementation. And with analogue hardware the fix might be difficult, even if the problem doesnt get burried by politics or concerns over cost.

Such a problem might be hard to understand looking at the plane from our perspective. The Mig-29 is obviously not design to have this flaw, nor might it have been fully understood, so its not gonna be an included issue in every manual.

Assuming its realistic, Im glad shortcomings like this are modelled, it makes modules feel more real and teaches you something about the technology behind our aircrafts. Love that aspect of the F-4E Phantom, with all its weird quirks.

And I do hope other RWRs are improved as well. Its a mistake to frame this as a 'blue vs red' thing; Tomcat pilots are annoyed at the F16/18s uncanny ability to notch all the time, while the F16 RWR is otherwise a lot less capable than the real thing.

The Soviets did make a lot of Compromises to get the Fulcrum and Flanker in service in a somewhat timely manner. The N001 is a good example of this. They still were delayed by years. I somewhat doubt they expected most of these jets to be in service long after 2000 in their original configurations as they had plans for a next generation fulcrum and Flanker to start production around the time the USSR fell and the MFI not that long after.

[Кош]

@Muchocracker @BIGNEWY just wanted to remind many users are still waiting for technical explanation of blanking. 

Edited Tuesday at 11:37 AM by Кош

[Temetre]

Am 26.10.2025 um 23:36 schrieb F-2:

The Soviets did make a lot of Compromises to get the Fulcrum and Flanker in service in a somewhat timely manner. The N001 is a good example of this. They still were delayed by years. I somewhat doubt they expected most of these jets to be in service long after 2000 in their original configurations as they had plans for a next generation fulcrum and Flanker to start production around the time the USSR fell and the MFI not that long after.

Yup, to keep up with the rapid development and upgrades of the US 4th gen it wouldve been necessary to treat theirs the same. Additionally its not without precedent that the soviets develope sets of equipment that dont quite go hand in hand or get pushed into service despite substantial flaws.

[Logan54]

"With simultaneous operation of the RLPC and L006LM, it is possible to display false information on the L006LM indicator (flashing bearing marks 10, 30, 50, 90 on the left and right, type X, power gradation up to 8, marks B, H and CAPTURE). To determine the actual situation, it is necessary (if possible) to set the RADIATION-EQ-OFF switch on the radar control panel to the OFF position for 5-10 seconds during the search and target detection stages."

As I understood, SPO can work with radar on, with interferences but can. There is no reccomendation to fly with no radar at all. Just check time by time real situation.
I can share public data with dev (if needed) in pm.
Thank you.

[Flyout]

17 hours ago, Temetre said:

Yup, to keep up with the rapid development and upgrades of the US 4th gen it wouldve been necessary to treat theirs the same. Additionally its not without precedent that the soviets develope sets of equipment that dont quite go hand in hand or get pushed into service despite substantial flaws.

There were precedents. The sad story of the MiG-23, which in its early versions had so many flaws and limitations that pilots wondered why they were given the aircraft at all.
The MiG-23 only became a functional fighter with the MiG-23M modification.

[Dejan]

This means that ED made a broken Mig-29 for DCS. In contrast to the western planes that are made perfectly without any defects.
I know there's no point in trying to convince the ED people, but it would be nice if they could give us the correct plane.
SPO15 Beryoza is part of the system for irrigation from the ground through the KRU device. I think the KRY signal is received via SPO15 and that's the only thing mentioned in the Mig29 user manual that the SPO is turned off in case the signal from the KRU does not pass.
Everything else is a matter of correct SPO or broken, ED sold us a broken plane, probably the kill ratio on the servers would be 100% on the side of western planes.

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Dejan said:

This means that ED made a broken Mig-29 for DCS. In contrast to the western planes that are made perfectly without any defects.
I know there's no point in trying to convince the ED people, but it would be nice if they could give us the correct plane.
SPO15 Beryoza is part of the system for irrigation from the ground through the KRU device. I think the KRY signal is received via SPO15 and that's the only thing mentioned in the Mig29 user manual that the SPO is turned off in case the signal from the KRU does not pass.
Everything else is a matter of correct SPO or broken, ED sold us a broken plane, probably the kill ratio on the servers would be 100% on the side of western planes.

Welcome to the forum, its an interesting first post and some accusations there. If you have evidence to back up your claims feel free to PM me. 

thank you 

[Dejan]

3 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Welcome to the forum, its an interesting first post and some accusations there. If you have evidence to back up your claims feel free to PM me. 

thank you 

Thanks for the welcome, I'm an old member, about 15 years already, but I lost my data for the forum, so I registered again.
Reading the topic, I concluded that the ED made the SPO 15 not work when the radar is turned on, and that's the way it is. It is also claimed that this was done on the basis of the service manual for the SPO15LM device, where it is written that such a situation is classified as a malfunction and that the device needs to be repaired.
My question is why did ED decide to build a broken MiG29, unlike all the other aircraft in the DCS?

Regarding guidance from the ground, I'm sure you have the manual for the Mig29 aircraft, it explains the procedure for guiding the path of the KRU device, and it is easy to conclude that the signal reception goes through the BERYOZA device, which is part of the KRU system.

[BIGNEWY]

7 minutes ago, Dejan said:

Thanks for the welcome, I'm an old member, about 15 years already, but I lost my data for the forum, so I registered again.
Reading the topic, I concluded that the ED made the SPO 15 not work when the radar is turned on, and that's the way it is. It is also claimed that this was done on the basis of the service manual for the SPO15LM device, where it is written that such a situation is classified as a malfunction and that the device needs to be repaired.
My question is why did ED decide to build a broken MiG29, unlike all the other aircraft in the DCS?

Regarding guidance from the ground, I'm sure you have the manual for the Mig29 aircraft, it explains the procedure for guiding the path of the KRU device, and it is easy to conclude that the signal reception goes through the BERYOZA device, which is part of the KRU system.

Hi, 

its not broken, that is your assumption. If you have evidence that shows us otherwise feel free to PM me the evidence. 

Regarding your old account please DM me, I can merge the accounts and get you back up and running. 

thank you 

[ASW]

1 час назад, Dejan сказал:

This means that ED made a broken Mig-29 for DCS. In contrast to the western planes that are made perfectly without any defects.
I know there's no point in trying to convince the ED people, but it would be nice if they could give us the correct plane.
SPO15 Beryoza is part of the system for irrigation from the ground through the KRU device. I think the KRY signal is received via SPO15 and that's the only thing mentioned in the Mig29 user manual that the SPO is turned off in case the signal from the KRU does not pass.
Everything else is a matter of correct SPO or broken, ED sold us a broken plane, probably the kill ratio on the servers would be 100% on the side of western planes.

[Pavlin_33]

It was not rushed, it was meant to be deployed using GCI and supported by extensive air defences. 

You can't look at Soviet doctrine through NATO glasses.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

its not broken, that is your assumption. If you have evidence that shows us otherwise feel free to PM me the evidence. 

Regarding your old account please DM me, I can merge the accounts and get you back up and running. 

thank you 

Hi Bignewy, 

1. We did rise already some concerns in this respect that different documents state different outcomes when it comes with the blanking issue. I did some research on the matter by watching carefully the video of the disassembly of the real SPO-15LM, and paid attention to digital stages of the devices, where the reviewer occasionally reads the circuits identification numbers. 

After some trial and error (he is a Frenchman reading Cyrillic letters in English, it took me a while to figure out correct IC marking), I found some public specifications for the soviet TTL circuits which were used in the device. It appears that the these ICs were able to operate according to the specs up to 1.5MHz (they also have variant offering timings requires for up to 3 MHz), which would generally mean that fast sync with radar operation would be feasible. An example of this can be seen in video showing #31 cassette which is mostly analogue but has some digital ICs. Diagrams used by your export appear to be logical schemes, so such details are not seen. Would it be possible to ask him to study the videos and ICs which were used on SPO-15 and compare that to documents he has at the moment?

On one occasion I actually found the IC which is available from catalogue, but is marked as special purpose IC, so no documentation was provided and I could not tell what the chip was actually doing. 

I hope that in time we will be able to clarify the real reason behind conflicting claims 

2. As for not being broken, I have to contradict this with an example we would like to have feedback on. I must say that I am puzzled why this happens, but likely it has to do with undesired interaction of newly implemented SPO-15 and the older asset in the game. 

The reason I am bringing up to this issue, is that it occurs on one of the most popular multiplayer server. The issue can be replicated 100% in single player. It would be nice to get this at least confirmed by developers even if they may not be able to fix it now.

BR

[BIGNEWY]

Hi, 

we have yet to see any evidence that helps prove what some are saying here, there are also more than one interpretation of the same info depending on who you ask and where the information came from. 

I have asked the team to look at information I have been sent, and also we hope to share more detailed information soon. 

thank you 

 

[Blackhawk441]

Bignewy, just to be clear, do you mean you have sent the Ropucha issue to the team?

[Dejan]

8 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

Hi, 

we have yet to see any evidence that helps prove what some are saying here, there are also more than one interpretation of the same info depending on who you ask and where the information came from. 

I have asked the team to look at information I have been sent, and also we hope to share more detailed information soon. 

thank you 

 

Look, I can send you the entire pilot's manual "L-18 aircraft handling" Yugoslav markings for the MiG29. In the entire manual for pilots, the only place where it is mentioned that Beryoza should be turned off, and the pilot should do it manually, is when the command to turn on the radar does not pass during guidance from the ground.
I hope you agree with me that the manual for an airplane contains all the possible instructions for using that airplane and all the restrictions.
I see that you mention Kosovo, better said the War with Yugoslavia because of Kosovo, there are testimonies of pilots who flew MiG29 in those days and who clearly mention that during the radar search they received a signal that they were locked by enemy planes. Pilot Abdul Emeti gives a statement that at the moment when he had a lock on enemy aircraft, he received a signal that the enemy had locked on him and he started an evasive maneuver.

I assume you know that Yugoslavian MiG 29s were hardly maintained in the period from 1991-1999 due to sanctions, so it cannot be said that the SPO on them was improved.
And yes, I would like to see your sources where it is written that during the use of the Mig29 radar, the SPO 15 device does not work in the front observation hemisphere.
And one more thing, after the last patch, when the enemy plane locks the Mig 29 in STT mode, any light stops shining on the SPO.

 

KRU na MiG (1).docx

[MA_VMF]

9 часов назад, Dejan сказал:

And yes, I would like to see your sources where it is written that during the use of the Mig29 radar, the SPO 15 device does not work in the front observation hemisphere.

Временное РТЭ самолета 9-12 1982г