SPO15 feedback

[Pavlin_33]

57 minutes ago, суховей said:

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.

The pilot quote you have shared directly contradicts at least two pilot testimonies from '99 Yugo-NATO war, where they explicitly used the SPO to start evasive maneuvers.

[суховей]

54 минуты назад, Pavlin_33 сказал:

Цитата пилота, которой вы поделились, прямо противоречит по меньшей мере двум свидетельствам пилотов о войне между Югославией и НАТО в 1999 году, когда они явно использовали систему предупреждения об облучении для начала манёвров уклонения.

This is the next level of discussions about the СПО and its ability to display real threats rather than false ones from its radar.

Perhaps AeriaGloria's theory of prioritizing the F signal over the X is correct.

In the meantime, we can't even convince the ED to keep the SPO turned on during its radar emissions.

Edited Saturday at 03:12 PM by суховей

[BIGNEWY]

Folks please stop with the back and forth, or the insults it isn't helpful. 

We have presented the data we have used and it is clear.

If you have first hand experience ( SME ) feel free to PM me but we do need a way to verify the claims, again we are happy to look at any evidence that is presented.

thank you  

[Кош]

Kuky Jaku Pavlin_33 Okopanja Dejan Please cool down. Your emotions are working against the cause. Thank you.

[AeriaGloria]

11 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. 

At the risk of making people sick of me making the same post how about the information that per Su-27 manual it’s equal power radar and similar SPO antenna placement shows as X category 7-8 bars on SPO. And according to ED manual limitations of SPO it says that when MPRF/HPRF F category signals are detected, it shuts off all CW (X category) reception. ED has said in latest SPO-15 info post that they plan to make option to remove the front hemisphere blanket so it will show your own radar X category emissions with radar on. 
 

Therefor when 4th gen fighters approach close enough that their radars go from being recognized as a flashing X by SPO-15 to properly identified as MPRF/HPRF (F category), it will then show the F signals instead of the own radars X category emissions when your own radar is on. This will happen at 25 km for F-15:18 and 40 km for F-14/16 so only close range but far enough that I think ALOT of people are going to be happy with it, as it’s close enough to short and evade most AIM-7/120B shots 

Like I said before it’s possible this could be a much much smaller thread if it was released with such a configuration 

Edited Saturday at 05:18 PM by AeriaGloria

[Muchocracker]

7 hours ago, okopanja said:

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

I am making an accurate description of what these collections of pilot accounts are.

 

4 hours ago, суховей said:

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.

 

I am starting to feel like a broken record

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.

This is the alternate explanation that ED has concluded to be the case based on all of the evidence they have reviewed for why the pilot experiences diverge. Please make an actually substantive argument that disproves this explanation. 

[Logan54]

At the moment, it's best not to use the SME point opinion (for ED), because there is no official SME report stating that "SPO-15 does not work with radar."
It's much better to focus on the actual documents. I have already asked to publish the 1st page of this electronic circuit to be sure of the model and year of manufacture of the SPO-15 that was used by dev.

Edited Saturday at 06:43 PM by Logan54

[суховей]

37 минут назад, Muchocracker сказал:

This is the alternate explanation that ED has concluded to be the case based on all of the evidence they have reviewed for why the pilot experiences diverge. Please make an actually substantive argument that disproves this explanation. 

I am not an SME and do not have all the documentation that ED has. And I do not have a specialized education in radio electronics to interpret the schematics. Only if the user Kош has such competence.

The words of a Russian pilot (in addition to the Yugoslav ones), as well as excerpts from the Su-27 manual, are sufficient evidence for me. The SPO is not disabled in the FHS.

In contrast to my claims, find at least one pilot who says that the SPO is disabled in the FHS

Edited Saturday at 06:35 PM by суховей

[Dejan]

Here's a scan of the original page from the L-18 Yugo pilot's manual markings for the Mig 29. I only translated the part where the warning is, below is the text that explains the sound signals and how to operate the SPO device. And that's the only warning about this device.

WARNINGS:
1. The operating mode of aircraft radars of quasi-continuous radiation, which operate in the mode of tracking in transit, is not determined.
2. When irradiated by a radar of continuous and quasi-continuous radiation at long distances (when turned on up to 5 power gradations) when irradiated by the radar of the air defense missile system "Hawk", the "H" mark lights up continuously, and when irradiated by an aircraft radar of the type F-14 F 15 F 16 and F 18, this mark goes out and the "F" type lights up.
3. When irradiated by an aircraft radar of quasi-continuous radiation, at the moment of activation of the type "F", the number of power gradations briefly changes from the fifth-eighth to the first gradation with their subsequent increase.

If I may ask. What is "SME"?

[okopanja]

18 minutes ago, Dejan said:

If I may ask. What is "SME"?

SME stands for subject-matter-expert. Usually this may be an expert in certain engineering tooic but also a pilot. In case of this topic it usually refers to the person whi did initual analysis of SPO-15. By noe I believe more than person is involved.

We thank you for human translation since this page was translated by machine/ai in the past. However I will point out that we went much deeper than the manuals, so it may be required for you to catch up.

[Dejan]

2 hours ago, okopanja said:

SME stands for subject-matter-expert. Usually this may be an expert in certain engineering tooic but also a pilot. In case of this topic it usually refers to the person whi did initual analysis of SPO-15. By noe I believe more than person is involved.

We thank you for human translation since this page was translated by machine/ai in the past. However I will point out that we went much deeper than the manuals, so it may be required for you to catch up.

I read everything, technically as much as I can understand. This is just a desire to show what it says in the pilot's manual regarding operating restrictions for the SPO device.

[Muchocracker]

6 hours ago, суховей said:

The words of a Russian pilot (in addition to the Yugoslav ones), as well as excerpts from the Su-27 manual, are sufficient evidence for me. The SPO is not disabled in the FHS.

I truly don't know at this point what else i can say to get this debate to steer in a direction where it moves forward with substantive arguments. I am trying to help this be productive and create the best articulated cases for the communities side and make convincing arguments to ED. I'm going to repost the summary again. 

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.

In all other sources that we have, such as the radioelectronic equipment manual (both Russian and Polish) and the full N019 documentation, the description is limited to a single sentence that is a paraphrase of “During operation of the N019 device, a blocking signal is sent to prevent reception in forward hemisphere of the L006” which is up for interpretation. The radioelectronic equipment manuals also clearly identify the signal as “Blocking Band I, Forward Hemisphere”, which is pin 4 of connector 7 - and is designed for continuous blocking, not blanking.

The maintenance manual shown as evidence described how to test the blanking system, explicitly naming connectors 10-14 as well as employing a signal with a PRF of ~1600 Hz. This is not applicable to MiG-29 and this procedure is missing from MiG-29-specific maintenance documentation.

Available training documents from multiple air forces actually show that the procedure in most cases was to never use the L006 and radar together - as in, the L006 was typically switched off manually, due to synchronization problems. This also makes it difficult to discern what the behavior would look like - most pilots never used the two systems together. There’s also the famous interview with Yugoslavian pilots, however there are alternative explanations to most revelations there that leave scenarios 1 and 2 as less probable explanations.

The technical documentation showing that only a blocking wire exists is substantial enough to require a higher degree of contrary evidence to disprove it. The anecdotal evidence has an alternate explanation which ED has make its conclusion on being the missing blocking wire manufacturing defect, and it makes said anecdotal evidence no longer relevant to the "originally intended integration" debate. Please make a substantive argument that rules out this explanation for the discrepency or this is thread is just going to keep spinning its wheels. The debate is now otherwise moved to "in practice function", Which as i have already repeated before. This has already been satisfied with confirmation that an option for missing blocking wire effect is going to be added. The community is getting what they want. 

[Logan54]

6 часов назад, Muchocracker сказал:

The technical documentation showing

This is really not optimistic, when developers have their own technical documentation that does not correspond to real documents and official data. This is not the first time when dev said "correct as is" when its not. When I showed real tech data that have mention about 3 position speed brakes, I`ve got answer that using only tactical speed brake is correct. After I found this mention in german flight manual, that is not tech documentation, but short translated version for 20 german aircrafts. Probably, I found real documentation that is wrong. Probably dev used german flight manual as main source, I really don`t know. We have situation where tech data already gone against ED realization in the past. What if today ED` "correct data" also wrong?

Edited 22 hours ago by Logan54

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, Logan54 said:

This is really not optimistic, when developers have their own technical documentation that does not correspond to real documents and official data. This is not the first time when dev said "correct as is" when its not. When I showed real tech data that have mention about 3 position speed brakes, I`ve got answer that using only tactical speed brake is correct. After I found this mention in german flight manual, that is not tech documentation, but short translated version for 20 german aircrafts. Probably, I found real documentation that is wrong. Probably dev used german flight manual as main source, I really don`t know. We have situation where tech data already gone against ED realization in the past. What if today ED` "correct data" also wrong?

you are just talking nonsense now, the data we have shown does correspond to real world, its from real sources. We clearly show what we have done and why. 

Again if you have documentation showing it is wrong PM me we will be happy to look at. 

thank you 

[Flyout]

On 11/22/2025 at 12:06 PM, Pavlin_33 said:

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

 

I have not seen any 4 pilots explicitly state that the SPO indicator shows clear information along with a working radar. The Russian documentation clearly states that when the radar is operating, the indication is chaotic.

There is a suspicion that their stories may have been misinterpreted.

Edited 21 hours ago by Flyout

[Dejan]

1 hour ago, Flyout said:

I have not seen any 4 pilots explicitly state that the SPO indicator shows clear information along with a working radar. The Russian documentation clearly states that when the radar is operating, the indication is chaotic.

There is a suspicion that their stories may have been misinterpreted.

You obviously didn't listen, read or something like that well. There is a translation of an interview with pilot Boro Zoraja in this thread, which clearly states that he spotted 3 targets during the search, locked on the closest one and waited for the launch signal. While waiting for the signal, the SPO received a signal that it was locked.Pilot Abdul Emeti had an identical situation and explained it in clear terms.  It couldn't be clearer.

 

[Muchocracker]

4 hours ago, Logan54 said:

This is really not optimistic, when developers have their own technical documentation that does not correspond to real documents and official data. This is not the first time when dev said "correct as is" when its not. When I showed real tech data that have mention about 3 position speed brakes, I`ve got answer that using only tactical speed brake is correct. After I found this mention in german flight manual, that is not tech documentation, but short translated version for 20 german aircrafts. Probably, I found real documentation that is wrong. Probably dev used german flight manual as main source, I really don`t know. We have situation where tech data already gone against ED realization in the past. What if today ED` "correct data" also wrong?

 

Please read this report in its entirety and understand that there was more documentation used than a single german flight manual. 

[FoxAlfa]

SPO-15 is not a single unit, but a family of units, plus from the due to modular design it is also modifiable and hot-wireable (if that is a word) .

So both are probably correct, and yes,

Yugo unit mods is not clearly documented but there are clear indication so at this point just make optional unit

and leave it to the players and server admin to sort out which one to use as it was done for Combat Tree.  

No body loses in that scenario, only the Fulcrum sales can benefit 

Edited 16 hours ago by FoxAlfa

[AeriaGloria]

The last SPO post in mini updates has many references to own radar showing as X category on SPO. That 100% means that per limitation in manual it should show F category signals within 25-40 km with radar on. It is just matter of tuning off CW reception 

AND it would still show other X category signals as green secondary threats, which will be obvious if we get secondary threats of no other category. So even beyond 25-40 km we will still have the green dots to see with radar on. And T category signals on primary and secondary threat within 25/40 km. 
 

Personally it seems to me that ED should make this default and make having the blanking wire be the ME trigger able jtem becuase this could make so many happy to atleast have radar show 4th gen threats at close range. 

Edited 15 hours ago by AeriaGloria

[Кош]

8 часов назад, Logan54 сказал:

This is really not optimistic, when developers have their own technical documentation that does not correspond to real documents and official data. This is not the first time when dev said "correct as is" when its not. When I showed real tech data that have mention about 3 position speed brakes, I`ve got answer that using only tactical speed brake is correct. After I found this mention in german flight manual, that is not tech documentation, but short translated version for 20 german aircrafts. Probably, I found real documentation that is wrong. Probably dev used german flight manual as main source, I really don`t know. We have situation where tech data already gone against ED realization in the past. What if today ED` "correct data" also wrong?

We DON'T HAVE the CORRECT DATA. Both mine and ED diagrams support the plausability of both module and FC3 variants of realization. Single wire is enough to pass the logical 1. Only question is frequency and sync of that "1" signal. ED has made it just constant becauese their amount of data does not support anything more specific. I'm trying to find more specific stuff, sadly it was never emphasised and requires thorough examination. Unfortunately I have never worked in electronic engineering despite having it learned 20 years ago, and Polish is not my native language. Nevertheless I know about sync much much more than 3 months ago. 

As for chaotic information. I recall once seeing a book about parasite electromagnetic phenomena in aircraft. Need to dig into this direction too.

Another thing - had a voice call with retired MiG-29 pilot - his opinion is that it doesn't matter much if RWR works or not, in real world scenarios there are always dozens of real contacts and RWR always gets saturated. GCI and mutual information support of spaced packages is the way IRL.

Edited 14 hours ago by Кош

[Thirsty]

1 hour ago, FoxAlfa said:

SPO-15 is not a single unit, but a family of units, plus from the due to modular design it is also modifiable and hot-wireable (if that is a word) .

So both are probably correct, and yes,

Yugo unit mods is not clearly documented but there are clear indication so at this point just make optional unit

and leave it to the players and server admin to sort out which one to use as it was done for Combat Tree.  

No body loses in that scenario, only the Fulcrum sales can benefit 

This.
Exactly that would slove all the issue, and people wouldn't be as upset as they are the current moment.

There is a whole thread on the Whis List section asking for something exactly like that.

I really hope ED considers this option, so this wouldn't be such a big issue as it is right now.

[Flyout]

6 hours ago, Dejan said:

You obviously didn't listen, read or something like that well. There is a translation of an interview with pilot Boro Zoraja in this thread, which clearly states that he spotted 3 targets during the search, locked on the closest one and waited for the launch signal. While waiting for the signal, the SPO received a signal that it was locked.Pilot Abdul Emeti had an identical situation and explained it in clear terms.  It couldn't be clearer.

 

Yes, of course, he could have received the lock signal from anyone. Even from his wingmen.

[Logan54]

2 часа назад, Кош сказал:

We DON'T HAVE the CORRECT DATA.

This is what I m talking about, there could be more then 1 truth. But ED think that should be only their truth. This is what we have here.
I read about 29 a lot, but never seen any SPO limitations. For me main source is russian manuals and I also checked different american and german articles and books.
When you read real docs and then go to DCS and understand that you not able to comply the way of how 29 should be used, this is generate this long threads.
I also want to check russian test pilots memoirs, to figure out.

Edited 12 hours ago by Logan54

[okopanja]

40 minutes ago, Flyout said:

Yes, of course, he could have received the lock signal from anyone. Even from his wingmen.

He flew without a wingman.

At Ponikve Air Base on April 6th there was a single Mig-29 with 2 pilots: Boro Zoraja and Dragan Milenković.

Edited 11 hours ago by okopanja

[BIGNEWY]

4 hours ago, Logan54 said:

But ED think that should be only their truth.

Please stop ignoring what is being said, we have said many times if there is new data we can look at we are happy to.