I was expecting RWR in our Mi-24, SPO-15 was there IRL... why not in DCS?

you're right. Also what said Fri13 above on some point make sense.

I acknowledged that SPO-15 is coming to MiG-23MLA as option, but that doesn't still mean that ED would upgrade their SPO-15 logic in FC3 aircrafts.

I am all in for that idea that ED would then see enough effort and cooperate with RAZBAM (and they with ED) that they would together finally add the SPO-15 properly in the DCS itself and then RAZBAM could use their core function for it.

As IMHO ED should do something for all studios (if not already doing so), by developing a some standard instruments/sensors that then other studios can use. Little bit like a "Hey, here is this standard ADI instrument that is manufactured by X, and it is used in A, B, C, D aircrafts by these various aircraft manufacturers". So that 3rd party studio could get the 3D model and the API for its logic for easy implementation.

So just so that every possible studio wouldn't be required to re-invent the wheel on every possible thing. Like example AN/ALR-67. If the ED does the logic and core functionality, and then 3rd party studio choose the proper functionality/logic (high threat inner/outer circle etc) that is builtin, all would benefit from it.

A unique/special equipment would still be up to studio itself to work, like Viggen collimator sight, but it should receive the video from the ED made AGM-65 seeker (video input is from ED, output is from Heatblur).

So ED would be developing these various instrument kits for others to use as well. Wouldn't it guarantee a better functionality between modules when core functions includes all these?

AFAIK ED currently only offers the map, weapons and environment (the air) data and everything else is up to developer to work around it.

So in this case ED would develop the SPO-10 and SPO-15 logic, the instrument basic 3D model and textures, and then let others to input their data to it.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=172556

In Afghanistan they had to somehow protect themselves from heat-seeking shoulder missiles. Stinger missiles gave the guerrillas a decent advantage in the battle against Russian helicopters, they didn't have any other types of missiles besides those. I don't think it's a big expense to add an extra. detector even for the less modern so I guess the pilots will have asked the technicians to put one on.

The SPO-15 addition was more a tactical implementation than a must have. SPO-15 was at the first line of battle in case an European war. Because those Warsaw Pact Mi-24 was the first response and they will be the first to deal with fresh radar guided enemies.

The SPO-15 would be preferable to me but I think we can make do with the older SPO-10 if need be. I do think they serve a purpose, at least in the context of DCS. In DCS it's easy enough to dodge a SAM by ducking behind cover as long as you aren't doing anything too dumb. And SAMs tend to just run their radar all the time, so you can detect them from a safe range that way. Even against fighters, a good RWR would be very handy. Forget the SPO-15 and imagine something like what the western jets or JF-17 have. You see a fighter headed your way from far behind his range, no worries, find a nice shady spot to land and wait him out, then move on. I wouldn't expect anything beyond the SPO-15, but I mention it to point out the foolishness of those saying an RWR is useless. It's no more useless on a chopper than it is on a F-18 or JF-17.

The SPO-15 would be preferable to me but I think we can make do with the older SPO-10 if need be. I do think they serve a purpose, at least in the context of DCS. In DCS it's easy enough to dodge a SAM by ducking behind cover as long as you aren't doing anything too dumb. And SAMs tend to just run their radar all the time, so you can detect them from a safe range that way. Even against fighters, a good RWR would be very handy. Forget the SPO-15 and imagine something like what the western jets or JF-17 have. You see a fighter headed your way from far behind his range, no worries, find a nice shady spot to land and wait him out, then move on. I wouldn't expect anything beyond the SPO-15, but I mention it to point out the foolishness of those saying an RWR is useless. It's no more useless on a chopper than it is on a F-18 or JF-17.

Right. MH-53 helicopters had a RWR and radar jammer. And they flew NOE!

For me SPO-10 is perfectly fine and it allows for a broader scope of periods where the module is appropriate for

The opposite situation from the F-15E with its post-2010 UFC which is a bizarre choice to me but democracy spoke

In Afghanistan they had to somehow protect themselves from heat-seeking shoulder missiles. Stinger missiles gave the guerrillas a decent advantage in the battle against Russian helicopters, they didn't have any other types of missiles besides those..

http://europauniversitypress.co.uk/auth_article416.html

I don't think it's a big expense to add an extra. detector even for the less modern so I guess the pilots will have asked the technicians to put one on.

What a SPO-10 would eventually really need?

Technically that is not so much to get inside and bolted. The challenge really is in electronics. As you need to get the sensors properly positioned for correct pattern, and if it is not possible then change the logic that can interpret the received signal properly to visualize direction.

With SPO-10 it likely would be possible as it anyways has so simple directional information, but SPO-15 would be more sensitive for positions of sensors.

For me SPO-10 is perfectly fine and it allows for a broader scope of periods where the module is appropriate for

I don't find the SPO-10 problematic or limitation at all. If you are alone in very complex electronic warfare, then you are in trouble no matter do you fly a helicopter or F-22.

If you fly with a wingmen so they help you to spot shoulder launched missiles, they help you to triangulate the threats positions and then if you have radio contact with the GCI that has information from EWR, SAM's and all, then you are pretty fine with SPO-10. As you need to know just general direction where threat is and what is its status relative to you (search, lock, guiding).

If you have a map, pen and ruler, you can easily triangulate the SAM position with SPO-10. Challenge is just that if you need to fly same time as you use those, why it is nice that you have a co-pilot at front that does it for you.

With SPO-15 it takes less time and is more effective many ways, but you get same result as with SPO-10.

And with more modern (post-SPO-15) you would have a digital display with the target position laid on it.

The opposite situation from the F-15E with its post-2010 UFC which is a bizarre choice to me but democracy spoke

So they then went to modern digital touch screen one, instead more fancy (and same exact features) and timely proper electronic display....

Sad....

In DCS it's easy enough to dodge a SAM by ducking behind cover as long as you aren't doing anything too dumb.

Reminds me from DCS 1.2.x where trees were nothing more than a props. Units saw and shot you through them. And then you were flying likely on a flat terrain so you had nothing where to hide.

It is still pretty much that with many maps in DCS, as we do not have terrain engine resolution as needed and no such ground clutter as required to really be able do all the helicopter needed maneuvers and tactics, but we are getting there. Already it is far better that trees offer at least some cover against missiles.

And SAMs tend to just run their radar all the time, so you can detect them from a safe range that way.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=118175

If just ED would implement such to DCS officially, with a proper "Communications AI" limitations as the capabilities. And then ED to finally fix the SAM missiles performance and all wrong guidance logic that renders SAM systems very easy to avoid and/or destroy.

Even against fighters, a good RWR would be very handy. Forget the SPO-15 and imagine something like what the western jets or JF-17 have. You see a fighter headed your way from far behind his range, no worries, find a nice shady spot to land and wait him out, then move on.

Problem is that likely the modern fighter would spot you on the ground, and put nicely one IR missile on you even when you have engines turned off, because you are still hot target. Or they simply dive and put a nice 30 mm rounds on you and buck off.

I wouldn't expect anything beyond the SPO-15, but I mention it to point out the foolishness of those saying an RWR is useless. It's no more useless on a chopper than it is on a F-18 or JF-17.

It is not useless at all. It is there to help. If these things would be like "I can't detect anything newer than MiG-21Bis radar...." then it would be useless in many situations.

One reason probably why we don't get SPO-15 is that ED has said that they so not fix the SPO-15 in Su-27/33/MiG-29 as long there ain't a full DCS module.

 

So if we would get properly done SPO-15, it would be needed to come to rest a well.

You mentioned the not improvement by ED for FC3 as possible reason to not implement SPO-15 in Mi-24P. I will understand perfectly the not implementation for FC3 birds of certain features as full simulated hardware in such basics aircrafts.

may you explain what FC3 birds lack in SPO-15? I just figuring out the cause of a possible reaction of the community in case the SPO-15 in FC3 really suck.

may you explain what FC3 birds lack in SPO-15? I just figuring out the cause of a possible reaction of the community in case the SPO-15 in FC3 really suck.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=172556

As well SPO-15 shouldn't have any blind spots (said 60 degree above or below) as the system doesn't stop detection of emissions because target is below or above it. The system simply can not give you the direction anymore accurately at some point but just will inform you that something is below or above you as the signal it receives is timed so close together that only altitude can be calculated.

I have read (without confirmation) that the SPO-15 should flash the lights like in SPO-15 based the detection of emission. So you would have a lights blinking at different times around SPO-15 as they sweep you at different periods around you. That would mean you can easily separate what is where as lights at bottom will blink same time as the secondary target direction dot.

So the few seconds "constant light" wouldn't be there for all emissions.

As each radar has own frequency, it can be detected. And so on you can group various different radars behind same light that are unlikely to appear same time as a threat. This way you can use fewer lights to symbol far more threats than all threats behind one light.

And as usually radars has different RPM/SCAN speeds, you detect those as well and you can hear them as well see the RWR timing.

So example at longer range you would know by RWR when a Hornet is in 4 bars 120 degree scan mode, and then when it is switched to TWS mode with narrower 40 degrees and same 4 bars, so scanning rate becomes faster. And if pilot use example 20 degree, 6 bars scan, it is a little different. With 2 bars one can have even 80 degrees and it is different from 4 or 6 bars as well by timing.

At longer range you would know what bars and degrees they use in TWS as only one sweep per bar likely hits you. And at closer range as you might get multiple sweeps from two bars, you get oddity as well because sidelopes starts to sweep you.

But as the emission strength is shown to you from priority threat, you will guess better the range as well the radar mode.

As well I have read that you could program these SPO-15 groupings that in the environment you are, you can leave some ranges out, so example you don't get your wingmen sweeps or other friendlies but just a threat radars. So if you get a "ping" then it would be from a enemy than your known frequency. So when your wingman launches, their radar sidelope doesn't tell at your RWR that missile is locked on you and guiding at you, that would happen in current form in DCS when you are anywhere near it.

If you fly with a wingmen so they help you to spot shoulder launched missiles, they help you to triangulate the threats positions...

You mean a human wingman, right? AI wingmen never called for MANPADS on the Ka50, and I feel that is quite annoying.

http://europauniversitypress.co.uk/auth_article416.html

 

 

 

What a SPO-10 would eventually really need?

 

 

Technically that is not so much to get inside and bolted. The challenge really is in electronics. As you need to get the sensors properly positioned for correct pattern, and if it is not possible then change the logic that can interpret the received signal properly to visualize direction.

 

With SPO-10 it likely would be possible as it anyways has so simple directional information, but SPO-15 would be more sensitive for positions of sensors.

I thank you for your reply and for giving me a clarification also from a technical point of view that I honestly am very passionate about.At this point I think that they waited a while before installing everything, although it was required and useful it probably required some expense and / or subject all vehicles to changes even in the weather. I believe that the subject made the pilots of those years talk at least as much as it did us. Greetings and good continuation.

You mean a human wingman, right? AI wingmen never called for MANPADS on the Ka50, and I feel that is quite annoying.

Sure a human, like in reality you have wingman checking you when you attack and you checking his attack. So that both can cover each others situational status.

...

 

Problem is that likely the modern fighter would spot you on the ground, and put nicely one IR missile on you even when you have engines turned off, because you are still hot target. Or they simply dive and put a nice 30 mm rounds on you and buck off.

...

Or not necessarily...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4445337&postcount=25

Or not necessarily...

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4445337&postcount=25

Well not so fast on this regard. SPO-15 will bring a really good situational awareness compared with the old SPO-10 and the Air Defense with R-60 need some extra attention to the radio features. For example AWACS are extremely capable and have several types of radios on board to do a more spread communication. In this case with Ka-50 we didn’t have the option to get AWACS call, so tell me what you gonna do with your R-60 against fighters if AWACS doesn’t give you the warnings...? That’s why we strongly need SPO-15 as Warsaw Pact units because we are scouts most of the time and AWACS doesn’t help much

Look this pool how the user ask to improve what I am talking about AWACS. Also look how the pool already have 2 nop votes. The same here with some against SPO-15... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4449616#post4449616

You see a fighter headed your way from far behind his range, no worries, find a nice shady spot to land and wait him out, then move on.

If only...

In DCS, radars detect even though buildings, or planes sitting inside a HAS.

The opposite situation from the F-15E with its post-2010 UFC which is a bizarre choice to me but democracy spoke

The moment you realize democracy isn't always the best thing... of course most people want the most modern stuff they ever could get while we want our olde cold war things with style!

Well not so fast on this regard. SPO-15 will bring a really good situational awareness compared with the old SPO-10 and the Air Defense with R-60 need some extra attention to the radio features. For example AWACS are extremely capable and have several types of radios on board to do a more spread communication. In this case with Ka-50 we didn’t have the option to get AWACS call, so tell me what you gonna do with your R-60 against fighters if AWACS doesn’t give you the warnings...? That’s why we strongly need SPO-15 as Warsaw Pact units because we are scouts most of the time and AWACS doesn’t help much

 

Look this pool how the user ask to improve what I am talking about AWACS. Also look how the pool already have 2 nop votes. The same here with some against SPO-15... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4449616#post4449616

Enviado desde mi ELE-L29 mediante Tapatalk

For me SPO-10 is perfectly fine and it allows for a broader scope of periods where the module is appropriate for

 

The opposite situation from the F-15E with its post-2010 UFC which is a bizarre choice to me but democracy spoke

It is really a shame how while ED tries to simulate a specific block, and sticks to what the aircraft exactly carried, some 3rd party devs are just adding things from entirely different versions to increase capability.

If ED is not going to stop that, there is no reason for them to not join in and add SPO-15, even bits of Mi-35 avionics. Since the red side of DCS has been entirely abandoned apart from helicopters, we will take anything we can get.

It is really a shame how while ED tries to simulate a specific block, and sticks to what the aircraft exactly carried, some 3rd party devs are just adding things from entirely different versions to increase capability.

 

If ED is not going to stop that, there is no reason for them to not join in and add SPO-15, even bits of Mi-35 avionics. Since the red side of DCS has been entirely abandoned apart from helicopters, we will take anything we can get.

today I was shoot down in multiplayer by a Gazelle Helicopter. I don't know if they get radio AWACS call. This Gazelle have a good RWR that help them a lot to spot incoming fighters.

If ED want to make later an improved Mi-24 version that's ok. I will pay the difference in price. When that gonna happen then...? . This is my guess. leaving The Mi-24 as a Afghanistan version is also ok for me.

The tricky question is what the other module got. They start with improved versions. As Heatblur did with F-14B. All I see in Roadmap for third parties is advanced stuff, even Eurofighter Typhon :music_whistling:

We keep stuck with SPO-10 and more and more crappies :D

The other question is: there are more old school stuff out there for new incoming modules? no much or nothing

It is really a shame how while ED tries to simulate a specific block, and sticks to what the aircraft exactly carried, some 3rd party devs are just adding things from entirely different versions to increase capability.

 

If ED is not going to stop that, there is no reason for them to not join in and add SPO-15, even bits of Mi-35 avionics. Since the red side of DCS has been entirely abandoned apart from helicopters, we will take anything we can get.

In the case of the 15E it's not an unrealistic configuration, it just makes it impossible to have a credible gulf war mission which in my view is a shame. Hind with SPO-15 might be a realistic configuration for some modern conflict like Chechenya but precludes the dozens of pre-90s conflicts the Mi-24 participated in. Which is not my preference.

So *for me* I'm happiest with SPO-10 for that reason. Others are free to disagree but I don't think it's a realism issue

SPO-15 was / is mounted on export versions of Mi-24P. ED simulate version, using in RuAF.

P.S: Mi-24 pilot said that there are some amount of units with SPO-15 in RuAF, but these are export units, which was not reached the customer, so de facto it's not RuAF standard, just exception, so -> logically simulate SPO-10.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4442024#post4442024

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4441970&postcount=2907

SPO-15 was / is mounted on export versions of Mi-24P. ED simulate version, using in RuAF.

 

P.S: Mi-24 pilot said that there are some amount of units with SPO-15 in RuAF, but these are export units, which was not reached the customer, so de facto it's not RuAF standard, just exception, so -> logically simulate SPO-10.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4442024#post4442024

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4441970&postcount=2907

These are quite some mental gymnastics, which would be fully understandable, if this level of precision was the standard in DCS. But after things like M2000C missile approach warning system, JF-17, F-15E and planned unrealistic F-16 maverick loadouts, no such standard exists.

As long as these added gadgets are the reality of the simulator, there is no reason to exclude all the Mi-24P that really were in service within the RuAf. You could make the RWR a server setting, as Razbam handles it with their additional gadgets.

One can't deny that a considerable part of this helicopter's service has been in that of a foreign airforce.

The solution really is simple, do both and allow people to chose which they put in the mission allowing for greater authenticity of the scenario.

It is really a shame how while ED tries to simulate a specific block, and sticks to what the aircraft exactly carried, some 3rd party devs are just adding things from entirely different versions to increase capability.

 

If ED is not going to stop that, there is no reason for them to not join in and add SPO-15, even bits of Mi-35 avionics. Since the red side of DCS has been entirely abandoned apart from helicopters, we will take anything we can get.

Agreed.