IASGATG

Blade, the reason is due to how it's coded. The Cd curve for the 7M and 530D are quite similar, but the cross sectional area has been jacked to bigger than an AIM-54. This is what is causing it to slow down like a brick.

If only someone wanted to drop some money into having it CFD'd *wink wink nudge nudge*

Blunt nose is a pretty big deal tbh, although rolleroins are bad too.

Here is the AIM-9M, Magic 2 and Magic 2 with the AIM-9M drag profile. All shot at 20kft M0.9. I think the graph speaks for itself.

Okay boys, I tried to stop myself from getting involved but it's too late. Super 530D vs AIM-7M The Super 530D is larger and heavier than the AIM-7M. It has more fuel than the AIM-7M with a similar boost/sustain configuration. The 530D is approximately 2s of boost and 8s of sustain verse the approximate 3s boost and 12s sustain of the AIM-7. Despite the larger size of the 530D, it has a more aerodynamic shape with specific channels to generate oblique shocks, reducing supersonic drag, coupled with smaller, thinner fins. With the higher fuel quantity (And since we're all basically using HTPB or similar for our solid rocket fuel today we have approximately the same ISP coming out of the fuel) this means that the 530D will have approximately 25% more thrust than the AIM-7M. Overall we'd expect to see the missiles performing at least similarly, although my instinct is that 25% more thrust should trump the difference in size and put the 530D ahead of the 7M, especially at high altitude. What we see below are the two shots of the 530D and the 7M shot at the same launch conditions, both fired at 40kft M1.5. We see the missile hit the higher peek speed which is expected with the higher thrust value, although the difference is only 0.2M. After this peek however, it bleeds speed at a much faster rate to the 7M until self destruction at 55seconds after launch.

But 1.5 just became release... so.. all fixed now right?!?!!?

STILL STAYING TUNED YET I SEE NO BLUEFLAGS RUNNING

There is no reason that objects of similar shapes should have radically different drag profiles, no.

Yes

The reason the Magic slows down so much is because the drag curve for the missile is.. well.. huge. Putting it into terms, it is bigger than any other missile in the game. Quick comparison for you. Mach 1 Cd AIM-9M = 0.08 R-27ET = 0.09 R-73 = 0.12 Magic 2 = 0.18 Mach 4 Cd AIM-9M = 0.05 R-27ET = 0.05 R-73 = 0.062 Magic 2 = 0.15 (The reason the Cd for the 27ET is lower is because of the increase in cross sectional area, so I probably shouldn't have added it as the other missiles have the same area)

I don't think anyone would dispute that the R-27ER should have less drag than the 530D. The exact numbers are probably closer than we think but in that ballpark. Anyone tried shooting the 530D with the R-27ER's drag curve just for a laugh? Or the R-27? OR the AIM-7M? (fyi, diameter not such a big deal in supersonic flight)

Just like to point out that the USN range for the AIM-7F is 57nmi head to head. :)

It's enough with enough chaff being output yes.

Not saying they don't have 27ER's, they have just enough to arm all 20 Su-35's they have. ;) Sorry, I'm messing around. It's hard to resist when it's so easy.

Hey it's the same 4 pictures. ;)

I just read and watched your test cases and replied. I don't think it's fair to say "We performed the most effective defensive maneuver whilst pumping out as much chaff as we can and the missiles were defeated, therefore the game is broken." For example, when there was the bug where IR's rejected all flares, the A-10 pilots were very unhappy when a MANPAD fired at them when idle and dropping 240 flares in 3 seconds and the missile still tracks. It's a similar sort of situation.

Chaff isn't 100% effective against SARH missiles though. Chaff + maneuver is effective against missiles. The missiles are beamed against a very highly dense chaff environment. (~25 chaff at tracking loss) I've attached the testing I've done as well at similar ranges at look up only and the missiles will miss when off aspect in a high chaff environment. They will hit even beamed with active chaff in the seeker FOV. The only question here is how much chaff is reasonable to distract the seeker head. Test Track

Sorry, can you show link my directly to these because I cannot see anything. Maybe I'm blinded by chaff? ;)

Same reason there are only the same four pictures of Flankers with R-77's. ;)

It does attempt to regain target and on occasion will. Demonstrated in the test track I uploaded. Because FC3 is a very simplistic radar modelling. How do you know that the radar isn't illuminating the chaff? Chaff creates a massive bright spot in the sky that does last a long period of time Because the missile needs to be tuned to the radar before launch.

Okay so I did some quick testing since in 23 pages I cannot find any Tacview tracks that actually show repeatable tests. The finds are basically thus: The shooter needs to be at least 30 degrees off the defenders nose and the defender needs to put out at least 2 chaff a second. This was tested reliably and seemed to defeat the missile every time. Moreover, it continued to track the target until range to target was ~1.5nmi at which point it started to face interference and switched back and forth between the chaff and the target. At intervals slower than 0.5s release the missile would track all up to the beam. Rear aspect shots were not tried because the RMax of tail chase is ~2nmi. In a head to head shot no amount of chaff will defeat the missile. Even when chaff was released at >4/s the missile would still track and hit the target. R27ER Chaff Test.rar

Sorry, just to clarify, tests have been done where you've shot an SARH at a head to head co-alt or look up target which is non-maneuvering but deploying chaff and the missile is regularly defeated? Or if defeated how often?

*Quietly puts up his hand* Back on topic, I'd just like to raise what chaff does to national weather radars.

For all I know, they may well be experts. However, I've learnt to trust published sources rather than what my mate Dave says at the pub.

I think the next time one of these threads opens, a moderator should delete every post that doesn't come with a linked source.