Tiger-II

I know... I'm getting a headache thinking about it.

Actual photos follow: https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM.html#mozTocId835567 SD-10A. Interestingly, the visual model of the DCS SD-10 shows SD-10A as the model identification/serial number. The tooltip text/other parts of the sim just say "SD-10", but it would appear that the real aircraft actually has SD-10A missiles. https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/04/10/what-does-pakistan-need-to-close-its-air-defense-gaps/ https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-PL-10-missile-How-good-is-it-compared-to-the-R-73-How-bad-will-it-be-once-the-JF-17-has-it-along-with-HMDS https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3GZaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=sd-10+missile+range&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&q=sd-10%20missile%20range&f=false Scroll for picture. Missile states SD-10A. http://defenseupdates.blogspot.com/2012/11/sd-10a-and-ld-10-missiles-at-zhuhai.html I think I found the source for the 21 km figure...ALTITUDE http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/missiles-i.html Read the following very carefully. So... SD-10 is the original model, NOT carried by the JF-17. LD-10 is SD-10 derivative. JF-17 carries the SD-10A ("improved version") but no details as to what/how. https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/brief-analysis-chinas-sd-10b-air-to-air-missile.114828/ Basic SD-10 (not A model) apparently weighs 180 kg. http://chinesemilitaryreview.blogspot.com/2013/09/chinese-sd-10a-sky-dragon-medium-range.html Buried in the text is this:

I'm not saying it is right or wrong as source; I'm just posting because you asked. Deka say they have good sources for data, and I have no reason to doubt them. Based on what they've posted in the past, I have even less reason to doubt them. Fact: we do not have access to real missile data. Fact: we can infer performance, the same way ED does: CFD. I know there are people out there who know how to do this, and can do the modelling independently. I wasn't intending to cause trouble with my post, because I do think there is something like a bug here, beyond the obvious. I flew the F-18 today with a friend in MP. We fired AIM-120B, C, AIM-7M and AIM-9X and we saw some weird things. I had one missile track right over the target at 80000 ft. :doh: I was flying the F-18, and fired an AIM-120B. Something is very, very wrong with missiles and tracking. When it comes to missiles generally in DCS, I'm only interested in two things: that they are modelled as accurately as declassified/public information allows, and that they actually conform to the laws of physics. The Phoenix has 150 NM range? I don't care. The Tomcat has a RADAR to match? I don't care. I'm out-gunned, out-ranged, and out-classed? I don't care. I only care that it is ACCURATE. If a missile is supposed to have 50 NM range, I expect to be able to achieve it. Not some gamified version because a bunch of people want to fly unrealistically. Want "balance"? Fly the same aircraft types against each other. Perfection.

http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/missiles-i.html?m=1 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g3yNDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT242&lpg=PT242&dq=sd-10+max+range&hl=en&sa=X#v=onepage&q=sd-10%20max%20range&f=false

Thank you. :thumbup:

I want the SD-10D. That thing has a jet engine and a range of 150 km. AFAIK it was only a proposal.

I thought we had the A model. Several sources stated for SD-10/PL-10 25 km. The same sources stated LD-10 was 60 km, and they also quote SD-10A/PL-10A at 105 km. I, too, was a bit surprised at the particularly short range of the SD-10, but given they had the more widely reported range of the LD-10 at 60 km, I didn't see it as being a mere typo. Maybe it is 25 km under the worst conditions (active off the rail at low altitude?).

I'm not bashing Deka for what's happening. You have produced an incredible piece of work. I can only guess that instead of ED fixing their side and increasing missile ranges, they've made the SD-10 to be shorter range. Unless I've confused kilometers and miles (possible) I thought the SD-10 was supposed to be capable of around 50 NM when launched from high altitude and speed? I did some more research prior to writing this post. Here's what I found: SD-10/PL-12 = 21 km max range LD-10 = 60 km max range SD-10A/PL-12A (the version I thought we had): 105 km max range ("comparable to AIM-120C4"). 21 km = 11.3 NM 60 km = 32.3 NM 105 km = 56.7 NM Convention states that "max range" assumes a high altitude, high speed launch (with the launch platform typically at Mach 1.0), lofting the missile at optimum offset against a non-maneuvering target. Assuming we have the SD-10A, these shots were well inside the missile max range. If ED are deliberately downgrading all missiles - why? Are they being forced to do so by an outside agency?? No other explanation makes sense. You can't change the laws of physics, and not all of us out here can be fooled by something that's obviously wrong. Shortening missile ranges is equivalent to doubling the effect of gravity on dumb bombs - absolute nonsense.

Passive bleed system is on the inside of the inlet against the fuselage. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296739241_Design_of_Bump_inlet_of_thunderJF-17_aircraft

Yes. It is particularly improved at AoA > 4 degrees. She'll now climb nicely at 8 degrees AoA.

I flew some formation with a friend that last few days (he was in the F-18 ) and there was no isssue with station-keeping.

I agree. If people actually looked at my post a bit more critically they would see the missile is lofting to very high altitude (58000 ft) for a 40 NM SHOT fired from 32000 ft at >= Mach 0.95. That same missile WITH PLENTY OF KINETIC ENERGY is then FALLING SHORT of the target FOR NO APPARENT REASON. Are you seriously trying to tell me that a 40 NM shot and the flight time required is EXCEEDING the battery run-time of the missile???!!! I simply refuse to believe it. I can't believe PAKAF would accept a missile with such a short life-time. Either: 1) There is a problem with the missile and it is going dumb before it should or 2) There is another bug within DCS that is just plain breaking or causing bad missile guidance. I also found that the SD-10 gets WORSE the closer to the target the aircraft is at the moment of firing it. It seems to fire its rocket for less time for short-range shots, and it can't reach the target due to a total lack of energy. The screenshots above show 6 seperate missiles. THEY ALL MISSED WITH GOOD LAUNCH PARAMETERS, and even kinetic energy to spare that it wasted by guiding short of the target.

It's not about what is possible or impossible, but what is accurate. It does not sound accurate.

Ahh yes... you're right. I was just giving limits, rather than specifics for the carrier. Wow. :noexpression:

Something is wrong then, as I'm firing inside of 40 NM with good shots, lofting, and optimum release angle (firing at the RADAR dot not the target). Aircraft speed is around Mach 0.90. Please see the following. They all missed, but shouldn't have. Targets are turning, but they are not evading. There are 6 missile shots in these images.

Not supercruising - MAX AB. I'm good with energy management/fuel economy. It doesn't matter what I fly - I always try and find their optimum profiles for various load-outs. In Falcon (all versions) I always made it home even if I was gliding. Several times I had to leave because I'd exceeded the JFS run-time. :D

I found it is OK. Choose your modes wisely.

SD-10 isn't tracking properly and losing the target when it should enter the terminal phase. I've observed 4 of 6 missiles miss their targets at 40 NM range because they are apparently just losing track. I don't think they're going dumb. What is the new SD-10 battery run-time? EDIT: Ughh... OK It appears the new run-time is 68 seconds?

Interesting. I thought the bars were the same size.

It appears they don't. I also just discovered another source of confusion: at some point the RADAR is switching itself into VS mode, which is why I can't lock a target after dropping lock. It appears that: * RWS -> ASM does not move the gates so target gets lost * Upon loss of target in ASM mode, RADAR is entering VS mode

My brain caught up...so are these new? I still think there is a bug here as when I lock the target now from 60 deg scan in RWS, it drops when the brackets reduce in size, and they stay centered instead of slewing to the side where the target is. The brackets also no longer move with the RADAR cursor after dropping lock (S2 press).

OK - so I did ultimately understand. Thanks! :thumbup:

TWS is set up the way it is because it is a TIME-CONSTANT SCAN MODE. If it scans a wider area, it uses lower bar count to have the same scan time. This is generally true across RADAR systems due to target tracking.

Thanks! I'm trying to post and work at the same time. :P It seems these are new modes? That was the part I didn't understand. I already read the changelog.

Ahh! Thanks! These are new modes just added? I'll hit the manuals.