SPO15 feedback

[NineLine]

5 minutes ago, Dejan said:

I already wrote that a friend who knows Serbian pilots who flew in 1999 and some who fly now asked about SPO 15 and that they said that ED did not really understand the essence, SPO has degraded capabilities when the radar is working but by no means does it not work at all.
In Serbia, the MiG 29 is still used, technical instructions for both active pilots and maintenance people and even the word is almost impossible to get for the public. There are only Instructions for the use of the L-18 aircraft from the era of the former Yugoslavia that surfaced in some troubled times of war.

Sorry, this isn't really helpful. Remember, we have our own SME on staff as well. So the 'I talked to a friend who knows a person who bumped into another person, and they said this is not right', doesn't enact any change. Now, if your friend of a friend wants to help and wants to reach out to our dev team, we can facilitate; otherwise, this is simply hearsay. 

[AeriaGloria]

17 minutes ago, NineLine said:

Sorry, this isn't really helpful. Remember, we have our own SME on staff as well. So the 'I talked to a friend who knows a person who bumped into another person, and they said this is not right', doesn't enact any change. Now, if your friend of a friend wants to help and wants to reach out to our dev team, we can facilitate; otherwise, this is simply hearsay. 

I am very curious though I understand we will have the answer eventually

”I would love to hear from developers or someone about  when the front hemisphere blanker is removed as an option as was said in the most recent SPO-15 post,

IF the device may still show F category signals at less then 25-40 Km ranges with radar on becuase of the limitation where once correctly identified as HPRF/MPRF all CW signals are excluded, and Su-27 radar shows on SPO-15LM as 7-8 signal bars of X category (since Su-27 radar has same power output as MiG-29 radar and SPO antenna placement isn’t too differentso I assume MiG-29 radar shows on SPO similarly) so would thus exclude own radar signals when F category (MPRF/HPRF) signals are found, since 4th gen fighters go from X category (CW) to being correctly identified as F category (MPRF/HPRF) at 25 km (F-15/18) or 40 km (F-14/16), and the ED manual lists this as one of SPO-15LM’s limitations to ignore/turn off CW reception when MPRF/HPRF is correctly identified. 
 

This would mean the option of the blanker removed is nearly a perfect middle ground for all users and perfectly realistic”

 

ED manual under “Device Limitstions-

-. Additionally, when an HPRF type is positively identified, the continuous wave detection circuit is shut down preventing detection of actual continuous wave threats - this needs to be taken into account when operating in an environment with both 4th gen fighters and Hawk batteries present”

Edited Friday at 09:01 PM by AeriaGloria

[Muchocracker]

12 minutes ago, Dejan said:

OK, how much evidence do you have besides this Polish one? Why would you believe Western pilots who tested the unmaintained German MiG 9 and not believe Serbian pilots who were the only ones who had combat flights. Do you in the West consider Serbs to be primitive, uneducated people?
Do you think we are fat here? Human memory is not reliable of course, Boro Zoraj does not remember whether he pulled the plane to the left or right, how long he maneuvered to get out of the lock, but he certainly has a deep memory of why he did it.
From experience and conversations with people who have done business with you, I know for sure that you are a group of arrogant businessmen who pretend to be the smartest in the world. If someone were to bring you the engineer who made the SPO 15, you would say that Putin made him say something different from yours.
There are several people on this topic who are very well-versed in technical knowledge, so you don't dare to replicate them.
When you were building the F-8, external sources, such as former pilots on that plane, were relevant to you because you didn't have technical documentation for everything, so it was only important to you to know how everything behaved. And that was OK for you then, but here you are clinging to something like a drunkard to a fence.

 

I dont know why this is a hard concept to understand. 

Technical documentation and examinations thereof, is a higher standard of evidence than former user statements, this is just prescriptively true. When you have 1, the other doesn't have the same weight unless it is backed by other contrary technical documentation. When you have an absense of technical documentation, then former user statements get used as the primary information. Because that's what you have available. 

ED has gone out of their way multiple times now to give the technical documentation and the rationale with other contextual evidence for why they did the "as designed" integration of the SPO-15LM into the specifc 9.12A that ED has modelled. Former user statements alone doesnt just make all of this technical evidence not exist anymore. 

They gave possible explanations for these contrary descriptions, and a technical reasoning through the reported manufacturing defect that would cause this behavior that was described by those former users. Even told us that they will be implementing this defect of the missing blocking wire. As far as im concerned the original purpose of this thread has been addressed and it can be concluded. You're already being given what you want. 

[Kuky]

14 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

Technical documentation and examinations thereof, is a higher standard of evidence than former user statements, this is just prescriptively true.

That is just wrong. REAL WORLD events stomp your manuals/papers esp when in addition there are other manuals/papers which also contradict them.

Have you not ever come across reading something, some instructions only to find that it does not function in the same way when you try it? I know I have, so pardon me for saying, you are just blindly trusting (and I can taste a hint of bias) what you are presented. As a tester, you should know to TEST the claims before you decide if something is right or wrong.

Edited Friday at 09:26 PM by Kuky

[AeriaGloria]

Defect? A defect that lets me see F category signals with radar on…… if my theory is right…….,

[Jaku]

On 11/17/2025 at 3:29 PM, BIGNEWY said:

SME's can also be wrong, pilots from years ago can also misremember situations.

We have shown clear evidence of the workings of the SPO-15 modelled in DCS, the team have taken the to time to try and explain why we have modelled it this way.  
As mentioned we are happy to look at evidence, we need to see data that shows what some people are claiming, we have not seen that yet. 

 

1 hour ago, NineLine said:

Sorry, this isn't really helpful. Remember, we have our own SME on staff as well. So the 'I talked to a friend who knows a person who bumped into another person, and they said this is not right', doesn't enact any change. Now, if your friend of a friend wants to help and wants to reach out to our dev team, we can facilitate; otherwise, this is simply hearsay. 

Are you guys sure your SME doesnt have dementia? you like to use this counter argument when shown evidence from interviews with pilots that flown this plane. As shown above.

Edited Friday at 10:21 PM by Jaku

[Muchocracker]

1 hour ago, Kuky said:

That is just wrong. REAL WORLD events stomp your manuals/papers

No, it doesn't. There are a plethora of reasons that you don't automatically take anecdotal evidence as factual information. From statistical unreliability in the accuracy of the experiences and accounts by the person, to lapsing memories, to misunderstandings of the experiences because of a lack of background knowledge or technical literacy to give them the ability to accurately describe it. This is an almost universal standard that applies to the entire outside world not just aviation, this is a rediculous position to hold. Without anything to back pilot statements, they do not stand alone as higher level of evidence unless it's all the information that's available. 

1 hour ago, Kuky said:

esp when in addition there are other manuals/papers which also contradict them.

By all means, please present to ED technical documents that affirmly describe functions in an unambiguous way that contradict all of the different types of evidence that ED has collected to support their decisions for the SPO model. 

1 hour ago, Kuky said:

Have you not ever come across reading something, some instructions only to find that it does not function in the same way when you try it?

And every time i open instagram i come across many posts giving summaries of X article or Y research paper then go read it and it doesnt at all say what the presenter gave. This goes both ways, but that doesnt at all make them equal things. 

I will give a perfectly analogous example within our general space. There is an older interview out there of a former F-15 driver who describes the performance of the APG-63 against notching targets to the effect of, and im roughly paraphrasing, "i watched the target enter the notch, and it tracked it all the way through to the other side". This statement and many others like it over the years by guys who are now supposedly irrefutable experts on the subject have contributed to basically the entire internet's misundertanding of MLC notching and MPRF signal processing, especially within the DCS community for many years. That is what his understanding of what's happening because he doesnt have the technical literacy to know that it didnt actually maintain the track. But that it coast mode extrapolated until the target was detected again within a number of seconds once it reappeared on the other side of the clutter spectra.

I have never said documentation cant be wrong. I said that pilot statements are not enough, BECAUSE of their higher propencity to be unreliable without additional contextual evidence or hard documentation. This is the whole reason ED went through lengths verify their information through multiple avenues of documentation from both ends of the system in question, AND backed up those examinations with non documentation evidence. And again, when given the contrary statements of pilot experiences, they discovered additional evidence that puts those statements in context and wouldn't ya know it, in that light it doesn't actually contradict the documentation. As with most all modules in DCS the standard for modelling the SPO was as designed and integrated and fully functional. And as far as this thread has been incapable of proving otherwise with substantive arguments, it has been done correctly to that standard. Despite that they are still adding the incorrectly manufactured state as requested by the customers. It's a good thing they are doing so. 

 

1 hour ago, Kuky said:

so pardon me for saying, you are just blindly trusting (and I can taste a hint of bias) what you are presented. As a tester, you should know to TEST the claims before you decide if something is right or wrong.

You have no idea who i am, or what positions i have taken in any technical debate with ED on how they have modelled various systems and behaviours across modules over the years. For that i assure you i am not an ED sycophant as you are trying to assert. Miss me with that. 

Edited Friday at 10:51 PM by Muchocracker

[Pavlin_33]

10 hours ago, Logan54 said:

The best way is to find poland 9-12 with SPO-15 installed and ask pilot how does it work irl, probably someone can do this.

 

No one on this planet is more competent to know about this topic than the fore mentioned pilots as they were the ones to experience the real deal - they were actually engaged by SAMs, AMRAAMS, Sidewinders. No one had tested this before and probably ever since. 

Engineers and manuals are one thing, flight tests are another, but real life engagement is something that is unique.

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Muchocracker said:

When you have an absense of technical documentation, then former user statements get used as the primary information.

More technical documents were quoted here already stating conflicting information on the matter of blanking. Also it has been used by both sides and so far what I can see is that there is no 100% certainty on either of the sides.

I would say that in such cases statement of the former operators also play great role and can not be easily discarded (remember they made statements way before we started discussing here what is right and what is wrong). 

I think @NineLine touched here an interesting idea with possibility to facilitate contacts. This not unprecedented and the most famous example were Zoltan Dani and Dave Zelko. I believe Dale during his visit was also given the tour of the 3.r.d. unit. This activity had to be approved by Air Force.

As far as I know: only Arizanov and Perić are not with us anymore. The rest might not be approachable: Nikolić did appear in relatively recent interview, while I believe Boro Zoraja is a frequent visitor of local Air Shows in Serbia.

 

 

 

[Dejan]

2 hours ago, Kuky said:

That is just wrong. REAL WORLD events stomp your manuals/papers esp when in addition there are other manuals/papers which also contradict them.

Have you not ever come across reading something, some instructions only to find that it does not function in the same way when you try it? I know I have, so pardon me for saying, you are just blindly trusting (and I can taste a hint of bias) what you are presented. As a tester, you should know to TEST the claims before you decide if something is right or wrong.

It couldn't have been said better.

1 hour ago, Jaku said:

 

Are you guys sure your SME doesnt have dementia? you like to use this counter argument when shown evidence from interviews with pilots that flown this plane. As shown above.

Bro, you have a pack of beer for this

[Schmidtfire]

This escalated rather quickly  It's a very interesting thread and subject and I don't want to see it locked.

Besides, the issue might be solved when ED implements option of removed blanker!  As both me and AeriaGloria has discussed in earlier posts.
 

3 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

IF the device may still show F category signals at less then 25-40 Km ranges with radar on becuase of the limitation where once correctly identified as HPRF/MPRF all CW signals are excluded, and Su-27 radar shows on SPO-15LM as 7-8 signal bars of X category (since Su-27 radar has same power output as MiG-29 radar and SPO antenna placement isn’t too differentso I assume MiG-29 radar shows on SPO similarly) so would thus exclude own radar signals when F category (MPRF/HPRF) signals are found, since 4th gen fighters go from X category (CW) to being correctly identified as F category (MPRF/HPRF) at 25 km (F-15/18) or 40 km (F-14/16), and the ED manual lists this as one of SPO-15LM’s limitations to ignore/turn off CW reception when MPRF/HPRF is correctly identified. 
 

This would mean the option of the blanker removed is nearly a perfect middle ground for all users and perfectly realistic”

 

So IF the theory (needs to be verified with ED) holds up... It means front hemisphere SPO-15LM and radar use with about 7-8 bars false returns from own radar on the SPO-15LM.
But it will still leave enough room for detecting stronger (real threats and lock) in the front hemisphere.

If any ED dev can verify this theory, we can pretty much move on as it will give the capability everyone in this thread seems to be looking for. 

[Dejan]

1 hour ago, Muchocracker said:

 

 

You have no idea who i am, or what positions i have taken in any technical debate with ED on how they have modelled various systems and behaviours across modules over the years. For that i assure you i am not an ED sycophant as you are trying to assert. Miss me with that. 

Without a valid document, I cannot accept this statement as evidence.

[Muchocracker]

you can meme away the argument to attempt to dismiss it, that doesn't make it any less correct.
 

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

More technical documents were quoted here already stating conflicting information on the matter of blanking. Also it has been used by both sides and so far what I can see is that there is no 100% certainty on either of the sides.

Nothing in technical evidence that has been presented has substantively contradicted the ED's evidence and conclusions that the blanking system was not fully integrated into the mig-29. This has been the exact same talking point looped over and over and over again like if it's repeated enough times then it all of a sudden makes the argument more valid. Present technical documentation evidence that unoquivically contradicts ED's evidence and conclusion that the forward hemisphere blocking wire was the only one present in the cables. That's all that has to be done here it's that simple. 
 

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

I would say that in such cases statement of the former operators also play great role and can not be easily discarded (remember they made statements way before we started discussing here what is right and what is wrong). 

You can't discard EITHER one my guy. That's not what ED has done here and they gave you the likeliest possible reason for it and with supporting evidence. 

-Technical evidence for each of the functions of the separate blanking, and blocking system

-Technical evidence that these 2 systems were integrated in this specific way into the 9.12A that was modelled

-A large collection of anecdotal accounts made by former pilots that describe the system behaving in a contradictory way. 

Both of these sets of evidences are valid, i have never once said that one or the other isnt. The technical evidence is a higher level of evidence because by its very nature than the anecdotes of being direct primary source of how the system is designed to operate and how it's integrated. There is still a reason that the anecdotes as many as there are have such a diverging description, and you should always try to find out why that is. Which is what ED did in the summary of the report, giving a likely reason for the discrepancy and supporting it with evidence that puts it all in context and makes them no longer relevant to the central argument. At the end of the day, in the absense of supporting evidence to those anecdotes the technical documentation takes precedence in what you act on. 

Quote

There’s also a description from training documents floating around the community which implies the second option, as it describes severe synchronization issues that could arise if this was attempted, and discourages the use of SPO-15 together with the RLPK completely. There could be a simpler explanation than synchronization being unreliable however, namely there’s a known manufacturing defect with the 9-12 that has been discussed by SMEs in forums before (as noted by users) where the blocking signal wire was completely missing - this would produce a similar result. It should be noted that these documents also apply to newer versions of the aircraft that we do not have wiring schematics for. The 9-12-specific training manuals do not include such passage in the SPO-15 section. Same applies to similar information about Su-27.

 

3 hours ago, okopanja said:

I think @NineLine touched here an interesting idea with possibility to facilitate contacts. This not unprecedented and the most famous example were Zoltan Dani and Dave Zelko. I believe Dale during his visit was also given the tour of the 3.r.d. unit. This activity had to be approved by Air Force.

As far as I know: only Arizanov and Perić are not with us anymore. The rest might not be approachable: Nikolić did appear in relatively recent interview, while I believe Boro Zoraja is a frequent visitor of local Air Shows in Serbia.

Could not agree more, they should absolutely persue getting more context from those former pilots. Getting confirmation that the yugo airframes had the missing blocking signal wire defect, what modifications were exactly done to their SPO's that some others in the thread have alluded to that was done, or just generally if the airframes they were delivered had different integration. 

[Pavlin_33]

One kind request from my side: please don't label these testimonies as anecdotes.

They are quite precise and mutually supporting recollections of things that have happened.

Also please don't start inventing a narrative that YU 29-Bs had modified SPOs: Su-27SK manual states the same thing about the SPO system.

If ED had modelled exactly the same sytem that both YU 29Bs had and the Su-27s, then there is no doubt that the implementation is wrong: this is pilot experiences + two manuals supporting the same thing (27SK & 29B).

Only option can be that ED modelled something that IS NOT the same.

[NineLine]

8 hours ago, Kuky said:

That is just wrong. REAL WORLD events stomp your manuals/papers esp when in addition there are other manuals/papers which also contradict them.

No, the only thing that would be wrong is only taking one into account. First-hand accounts can be incorrect, and documents can be incorrect. Also, we simply cannot take the word passed down through 3 different people and their dog spot as a basis to make a real change, especially when we have actual SME on staff. But as BN has said already, and as we say all the time, we are open to any and all information, but it needs to be valid and with a legally shareable source. If it's an SME, we need to have direct communication with them and to be able to validate them. 

[Flyout]

19 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Ok, we can talk about different units and changes to the Yugo SPOs like hot wiring and even changing of modules which is a fact can be discussed.

But lets not calling recollection inaccurate since 'surviving being hit by a missile since SPO went off'  isn't exactly a 'color of the napkins on your first date',
you remember that for the whole of your life and probably relive it more times that you would like too. 

Anyone can make mistakes, and memory can be flawed too. There's no point in making pilots into superheroes who record every event into computer memory.

[Pavlin_33]

1 hour ago, Flyout said:

Anyone can make mistakes, and memory can be flawed too. There's no point in making pilots into superheroes who record every event into computer memory.

Four different pilots experienced exactly the same thing. One single testimony, ok I get it - people make mistakes, but four?!

 

[Dejan]

2 hours ago, NineLine said:

No, the only thing that would be wrong is only taking one into account. First-hand accounts can be incorrect, and documents can be incorrect. Also, we simply cannot take the word passed down through 3 different people and their dog spot as a basis to make a real change, especially when we have actual SME on staff. But as BN has said already, and as we say all the time, we are open to any and all information, but it needs to be valid and with a legally shareable source. If it's an SME, we need to have direct communication with them and to be able to validate them. 

Then contact the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Serbia and ask if they would be willing to provide you with old technical documentation for the Yugoslav MiG.

[Kuky]

3 hours ago, NineLine said:

No, the only thing that would be wrong is only taking one into account.

Isn't that being done by ED in this case? I mean you used 1 thing, this manual, to model MiG-29's SPO-15 this way while there are more than 1 thing - Yugoslav pilots (also more than 1) and other manual which contradict it.

[okopanja]

7 hours ago, Muchocracker said:

There is still a reason that the anecdotes as many as there are have such a diverging description, and you should always try to find out why that is.

I do not think this applies to any of the stories I published so far.

[NytHawk]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

I do not think this applies to any of the stories I published so far.

There are multiple definitions of this word in particular. 

[okopanja]

4 minutes ago, NytHawk said:

There are multiple definitions of this word in particular. 

Clearly we did not spend the same amount of time studying the topic. 

[Logan54]

I found german pilot` report about + and  - of the 29.
I can not see there any mention of SPO blocking by radar.
I also checked "Combat use of the MiG-29 aircraft Methodical manual for the pilot (Second edition, revised and expanded)" and not found any SPO-15 mention too.
This makes me doubt the current implementation of SPO-15.
Can we find any real life pilot reported this issue, or this is only ED`s version of the 29 realization?
For being realist, I need something looks like proof, not as company blind faith.
No one tech data that I`ve read not have any SPO limitations. SPO-15 scheme can not be proof, if there is no mention in main documents.
By the way, can we see the full scanned SPO-15 (that ED showed), with year of document and name of the model? I want to be sure, this is not repair kit or non official part.

[суховей]

A Russian pilot of the MiG 29 also confirms that the SPO works when the radar is on. However, it displays inaccurate information. I have previously posted about this in this thread.

Here is the link to the pilot's post:

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/95150-dcs-mig-29a/page/302/#findComment-5704978

I believe that ED should consider the testimonies of many pilots from different countries. The conclusions based on the analysis of the electrical circuits presented by ED  (about disabling the SPO) are merely interpretations rather than facts.

Edited Saturday at 01:31 PM by суховей

[Кош]

Cool down.

Meanwhile, I've found that KJ1 is polled with checks if it's polling frequency is not drifting, and compensates timing errors against...something. Also KJ1(Blank SPO-15) and KJ5(Radar malfunction) are polled with separate logic from anything else, and, so far, seems to be connected to a signal that becomes the IZP signal in the sync block(turned out IZP passes through sync block but not originates in it).

Problem is everything change names from scheme to scheme. I'm still figuring out...

Edited Saturday at 04:49 PM by Кош