S530 Range

Notching is when the target is moving 90 degrees relative to where your nose is pointing. In correct brevity it is actually "beaming" when a target does it. "Notching" is when you yourself do it.

 

I just tested the S530 against a Tu-95 with the same results as always. First hit did zero damage. Second hit blew off his left horizontal stabilizer and the top half of the vertical stabilizer and he diverted to the nearest airfield.

 

Each and every time the result is the same: a solid S530 hit will do no more than mess up his tail and send him running home.

I did some tests against a Tu-95 too. Most tests ended with the Tu falling to the ground burning, but a couple tests endet with 4 missiles hit and a smoking Tu returning home. Perhaps it depends on altitude? Because the 530D likes the height i did most of my last tests at high altitude and they endet most of the time with the first 530D damaging the Tu (black smoke) and the second missile separating one of the wings. I attached an ACMI TacView file of my last test(in case you use/own TacView). The Tu was flying at ~35k ft and myself at ~52k ft. I shot my first 530D at ~25,5nm and the second at ~15,4nm head on approach. Both missiles tracked the Tu and shot it down, the first damaged it(black smoke) and the second was separating the wing).

My shots were generally taken between 26k and 33k. Here are four of my track files. There are some misses (stupid shots) but you can see a single missile hit repeatedly fails to kill the Bear.

My shots were generally taken between 26k and 33k. Here are four of my track files. There are some misses (stupid shots) but you can see a single missile hit repeatedly fails to kill the Bear.

Thats what i'm experiencing. If i remember correct i never one shotted the Tu-95. Maybe it is a bad comparison but look at some pictures of B-17 bombers from WW2 and the damage they took and returned home.

OT: those B-17 who returned home for these spectecular pictures where just lucky. 90% of the B-17 that took the same or less damage when down. don't take that as a rule, it was a lucky exception.

Btw, does a AIM-7 oneshots a Bear?

OT: those B-17 who returned home for these spectecular pictures where just lucky. 90% of the B-17 that took the same or less damage when down. don't take that as a rule, it was a lucky exception.

 

Btw, does a AIM-7 oneshots a Bear?

I made a simple test mission, and 0/4 AIM-7 first hits destroyed the bear, tail aspect, between 20K and 30K feet MSL. In every case it kept flying with a smoking engine, and a 2nd missile (AIM-120) then caused it to crash.

This is an extremely interesting read. I'm attempting to really put the S530D to use however it really needs good conditions for kill probability. Your best maneuver in dealing with a Su27 - Su33 or even worse a F-15 is to run. You really have zero chance.

However based on the Wiki this is how the missile functions. You want reality there it is folks :)

Its still a good interceptor and if you get jumped by one of the more modern jets an you have to fight in close The MAGIC will do just fine. This plane also turns well so you can be rather formidable in a guns situation. I would place this fighter in a roll of intercepting Bombers or Attack Air Craft but I would NOT get into a BVR situation with this aircraft at all.

I would place this fighter in a roll of intercepting Bombers or Attack Air Craft but I would NOT get into a BVR situation with this aircraft at all.

Current missile drag too much, it doesn't help.

But to engage Fox 3 shooter you need 2 Vs 1 ratio in your favor, at least.

And it's not M-2000C specific, it's Fox 1 Vs Fox 3 tactic.

BVR is about knowing when to crank/ notch/ pump & recommit...not that easy !

This is an extremely interesting read. I'm attempting to really put the S530D to use however it really needs good conditions for kill probability. Your best maneuver in dealing with a Su27 - Su33 or even worse a F-15 is to run. You really have zero chance.

......SNIP

The Mirage 2000 we have is really an 80's plane. The way I see it, going against 90's or even late 90's armed F-15s and SU-27s is just punishing yourself. It's fun to try and succeed against all odds and kudos to you if you're good at it, but we should really be practicing against realistically armed opponents using AIM-7s and R-27Rs.:)

The Mirage 2000 we have is really an 80's plane. The way I see it, going against 90's or even late 90's armed F-15s and SU-27s is just punishing yourself. It's fun to try and succeed against all odds and kudos to you if you're good at it, but we should really be practicing against realistically armed opponents using AIM-7s and R-27Rs.:)

Right now, going against an R-27R armed MiG-29 is close to suicide. It has all to do with "luck" factor and very little with skills. R-27R has a greater engagement range than the 530D (DCS World).

Right now, going against an R-27R armed MiG-29 is close to suicide. It has all to do with "luck" factor and very little with skills. R-27R has a greater engagement range than the 530D (DCS World).

Well... yes, but I think that is going to be worked on. Right now the 530D seems to fly a little like a brick. I hope this won't be a problem for too long.

Well... yes, but I think that is going to be worked on. Right now the 530D seems to fly a little like a brick. I hope this won't be a problem for too long.

Yup the 530 is really crappy now hope it gets worked on soon-ish but knowing ED devs will want "Hard" data on this will make this topic really bloody

Yup the 530 is really crappy now hope it gets worked on soon-ish but knowing ED devs will want "Hard" data on this will make this topic really bloody

Well I hope there's enough user recorded data in this thread to satisfy the ED Team. It seems like there is.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=156875

I've shown data from 40kft previously. Here is with my modification at 40kft. It self destructs at 55s after launch (I imagine to simulate battery life or something similar).

 

40kft M1.3

 

IASGATG... Is your MOD currently viable for the M2000c module?

thanks, i'm relatively new to DCS and i'm totally impressed by your Missile work.

Also, at 40,000ft shouldn't the missile achieve MACH 5 ? I always heard this missile to be touted as MACH 5 to reduce reaction time...am i wrong?

Also, at 40,000ft shouldn't the missile achieve MACH 5 ? I always heard this missile to be touted as MACH 5 to reduce reaction time...am i wrong?

That must depend on the launcher's speed... otherwise the S-530D would be a very powerful missile. However, a Mach 5 maximum speed let hear that the S-530D have more thrust (or less drag) and better acceleration rate than the AIM-7 for example. But for now, the S-530D is even worst and slower than the AIM-7.

Maybe if you launch it at Mach 2, Mach 2+ ... same with Phoenix, you need to launch it at Mach 2 to get it to hit Mach 5.

In that respect, there are probably a lot of missiles are that 'mach 5' :)

Also, at 40,000ft shouldn't the missile achieve MACH 5 ? I always heard this missile to be touted as MACH 5 to reduce reaction time...am i wrong?

Maybe if you launch it at Mach 2, Mach 2+ ... same with Phoenix, you need to launch it at Mach 2 to get it to hit Mach 5.

 

In that respect, there are probably a lot of missiles are that 'mach 5' :)

Not sure, since Super 530D have a specific shape for less drag, and for comparison, seems to have little bigger propellant than AIM-7 for example... The S-530D's shape seem to be optimized for high speed.

Not sure, since Super 530D have a specific shape for less drag, and for comparison, seems to have little bigger propellant than AIM-7 for example... The S-530D's shape seem to be optimized for high speed.

Shape isn't everything. The 530D also has a stainless steel body, and weighs more than the AIM-7.

Shape isn't everything. The 530D also has a stainless steel body, and weighs more than the AIM-7.

Hmm... AIM-7 230kg (510 lbs), S530-D 250kg (550 lbs)... a little heavier yes... the S530-D is a little bigger too, so weigh/size is correlated... i doubt the AIM-7 is made of aluminium...

270kg-275kg for Super 530D

hum, yes, 250kg is for the 530F... so, lets go again for a comparison chart !

AIM-7:

L: 366 cm

D: 20 cm

W: 230 kg

S-530D:

L: 380 cm

D: 26 cm

W: 270 kg

Some stupids calculs (yes, stupids because its too simple to be accurate in any manner, but its funny anyway):

AIM-7:

Volume: 366*20 = 7320 (forgets the cylinder formula, square formula is sufficient for demonstration)

Density: 230 / 7320 = 0.031

S-530D:

Volume: 380*26 = 9880

Density: 270 / 9880 = 0.027

S-530D is the winner... hmm... Yeah !! houra !! (that mean absolutly nothing, but... OSEF :D the main idea is: The S-530D si not "heavier" than the AIM-7 proportionally )

There's nothing about the 530D that should give it a whole lot less drag than sparrow.

This is all about rocket thrust vs. launch velocity. We know this missile has more fuel than the AIM-7, or rather, we can speculate easily (typical fuel fraction is 0.29-0.34 of missile weight) ... and that's the part that really does the trick.

Same deal with R-27 ... the 'E' has a lot more fuel.

Not sure, since Super 530D have a specific shape for less drag, and for comparison, seems to have little bigger propellant than AIM-7 for example... The S-530D's shape seem to be optimized for high speed.

There's nothing about the 530D that should give it a whole lot less drag than sparrow.

What IASGATG say, and, i think is right... but maybe we can find some source:

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.

The point is sedenion, that when you do the actual math, the reduction in drag won't be all that much, if any.

The vast majority of supersonic drag is driven by the nosecone. Yes, there are significant contributions from other parts, but by and large the nosecone will make it or break it.

Consider that the nosecones of these missiles are usually heavily protected with special covers before flight.

Not sure of the author accuracy but here goes:

A Compendium of Armaments and Military Hardware (Routledge Revivals)

By Christopher Chan.

Page 538:

hum, yes, 250kg is for the 530F... so, lets go again for a comparison chart !

 

AIM-7:

L: 366 cm

D: 20 cm

W: 230 kg

 

S-530D:

L: 380 cm

D: 26 cm

W: 270 kg

 

Some stupids calculs (yes, stupids because its too simple to be accurate in any manner, but its funny anyway):

 

AIM-7:

Volume: 366*20 = 7320 (forgets the cylinder formula, square formula is sufficient for demonstration)

Density: 230 / 7320 = 0.031

 

S-530D:

Volume: 380*26 = 9880

Density: 270 / 9880 = 0.027

 

S-530D is the winner... hmm... Yeah !! houra !! (that mean absolutly nothing, but... OSEF :D the main idea is: The S-530D si not "heavier" than the AIM-7 proportionally )

I believe that a denser object loses inertia in ballistics slower than a less dense object, your analysis shows under non-powered flight the 530 would lose speed faster than the AIM7 given you are taking fuel expended weights into consideration. Assuming similar aero properties of course.