S530 Range

[Zeus67]

Just for the hell of it I flew the M-2000C in 1.5.3, I usually fly exclusively the developer's version, and managed to do a hard kill with the Matra Super 530D at 17 nmiles. For a while I though the missile wasn't going to hit and then when the timer read 0 I saw that beautiful light flash in the distance and my target was no more.

[Enduro14]

This is fact I am also noticing the ability to kill long range tgts. It's one of those wait for it moments but when it happens it's freaking epic. Great work I think air to air is doable finally at long range.

[Zeus67]

This is fact I am also noticing the ability to kill long range tgts. It's one of those wait for it moments but when it happens it's freaking epic. Great work I think air to air is doable finally at long range.

 

Just wait until the radar is upgraded then it will be more epic.

[Fer_Fer]

Range is significantly better,

got a kill at 11NM at 15.000ft.

[Zeus67]

Can you give more details? What altitude and speed when you launched? Also, were you 17 miles from the target when you fired or were you 17 miles apart when the missile hit? I only have DCS 2.01 so I can't test it myself.

 

Sent from my XT1095 using Tapatalk

 

I don't remember my altitude but it was above 15000 feet. 4 contacts at 30+nmiles. Locked one at 25+ nmiles. Watched the range drop and the TOF counter.

I flew the aircraft to a middle point between the Interception Director (the small square) and the Interception Ring. I was afraid that the interception vector was too high to keep radar lock.

 

At 19 nmiles the counter at last dropped to 36 seconds and the target was deemed in range. I launched at 17 nmiles range. TTI was computed to 18 seconds. Those were the longest 18 seconds. Funnily enough the missile flew towards the point indicated by the Interception Director.

 

Those were the longest 18 seconds. When the TTI was at 4 seconds, I though that the missile had lost lock and then at TTI 0 there was the flash.

 

My speed was between 380 to 420 KIAS.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Zeus67

[Enduro14]

I don't remember my altitude but it was above 15000 feet. 4 contacts at 30+nmiles. Locked one at 25+ nmiles. Watched the range drop and the TOF counter.

I flew the aircraft to a middle point between the Interception Director (the small square) and the Interception Ring. I was afraid that the interception vector was too high to keep radar lock.

 

At 19 nmiles the counter at last dropped to 36 seconds and the target was deemed in range. I launched at 17 nmiles range. TTI was computed to 18 seconds. Those were the longest 18 seconds. Funnily enough the missile flew towards the point indicated by the Interception Director.

 

Those were the longest 18 seconds. When the TTI was at 4 seconds, I though that the missile had lost lock and then at TTI 0 there was the flash.

 

My speed was between 380 to 420 KIAS.

 

Awesome!

[Plushanubka]

Nice. What's with magics?

[Zeus67]

Nice. What's with magics?

They still are clones of ED's missiles. But will get fixed in due time.

[RoflSeal]

I don't remember my altitude but it was above 15000 feet. 4 contacts at 30+nmiles. Locked one at 25+ nmiles. Watched the range drop and the TOF counter.

I flew the aircraft to a middle point between the Interception Director (the small square) and the Interception Ring. I was afraid that the interception vector was too high to keep radar lock.

 

At 19 nmiles the counter at last dropped to 36 seconds and the target was deemed in range. I launched at 17 nmiles range. TTI was computed to 18 seconds. Those were the longest 18 seconds. Funnily enough the missile flew towards the point indicated by the Interception Director.

 

Those were the longest 18 seconds. When the TTI was at 4 seconds, I though that the missile had lost lock and then at TTI 0 there was the flash.

 

My speed was between 380 to 420 KIAS.

 

That is such a gripping after action report.

[QuiGon]

Can you adjust the missile parameters as you wish or are there any restrictions to that from ED? I just wonder if 3rd party developers could create super missiles that are totally overpowered and defeat anything if they want to.

 

No, I don't think you guys are going to do anything like that. I trust you with that. It's just a general question that I'm curious about :D

Edited February 19, 2016 by QuiGon

[GGTharos]

Yes they could.

 

And right now it's a potential issue that missiles are really not uniform.

 

They may suck, but they suck uniformly. Right now 'missiles working correctly-ish' in terms of aerodynamics would be pretty much super-powered compared to the others.

[Zeus67]

Can you adjust the missile parameters as you wish or are there any restrictions to that from ED? I just wonder if 3rd party developers could create super missiles that are totally overpowered and defeat anything if they want to.

 

No, I don't think you guys are going to do anything like that. I trust you with that. It's just a general question I'm curious about :D

 

I hope you understand that I won't answer that question at all.

[Rlaxoxo]

I hope you understand that I won't answer that question at all.

 

It's okay just change the t-accel to 1000 and give it 1000000.1 pounds of thrust with 0.05 drag : )

[Bidartarra]

Just managed to score kills at around 16nm, was pretty cool

[Zeus67]

Just managed to score kills at around 16nm, was pretty cool

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

[Bidartarra]

Good job guys, the missile doesn't seem to overpowered either, chaffs and maneuvering seem to be able to counter it too.

[QuiGon]

I hope you understand that I won't answer that question at all.

 

I do understand. I actually was expecting that. :)

[Zeus67]

Yes they could.

 

And right now it's a potential issue that missiles are really not uniform.

 

They may suck, but they suck uniformly. Right now 'missiles working correctly-ish' in terms of aerodynamics would be pretty much super-powered compared to the others.

 

Not for long. We are taking steps to prevent this.

[mattebubben]

The problem for me with the S 530 is more on the radar side then it is the missile preformance.

 

Since as soon a an enemy makes even a slight turn the radar looses lock

(i guess it notches the radar)

 

But every little turn to the right or left and i loose radar lock =P.

 

Even missile shots with 5-6 seconds estimated travel have been notched for me =P so that feels a bit annoying.

 

But im happy to wait for more patches.

 

And im confident in time everything will be perfect.

[GGTharos]

You're not alone :)

 

Not for long. We are taking steps to prevent this.

[Rlaxoxo]

The problem for me with the S 530 is more on the radar side then it is the missile preformance.

 

Since as soon a an enemy makes even a slight turn the radar looses lock

(i guess it notches the radar)

 

But every little turn to the right or left and i loose radar lock =P.

 

Even missile shots with 5-6 seconds estimated travel have been notched for me =P so that feels a bit annoying.

 

But im happy to wait for more patches.

 

And im confident in time everything will be perfect.

 

I guess when we get stabilized moving radar things might improve

[Thinder]

Thanks for this post. It answers most of the questions I had about the performance of this missile. From this, and other posts, we can deduce that the M2000C is a formidable knife fighter that mostly uses it's 2xMatraD loadout to put the enemy on the defensive so it can close in and finish the fight with its 2xMagicII and its guns.

 

Well, actually no, Super 530 series missiles were always meant for interception of high flying/fast targets, as opposed to what was said earlier.

 

Starting with the old Mirage III 530, a platform with an intercept capability of <> 60.000 ft, the F1 Super-530 F and the 2000 Super 530 D, in the case of the D, this explains its increase in speed up to M 5.0, you don't need a M5.0 AAM to down a bomber, you need range, the opposite of Super 530 D.

 

Mirage III tried to intercept Mirage IV flying at M 2.0 using their typical interception profile and couldn't really do it, hence the development of the "super" serie, designed to keep up with the perceived threat.

 

Those missiles were conceived at a time where AdlA had a doctrine of use involving threats such as the Mig-25, that's mid-60's, for a country they would be able to cross in only a few mn, all the platforms were interceptors with high-speed/high-altitude capabilities....

 

The "super" AAMs never were meant to be used vs more maneuverable fighters such as Mig-29, but have the energy (especially the D with M 5.0 and look-down shoot-down capabilities), good maneuverability for their type but no exceptional other characteristics vs agile fighters.

 

People shouldn't try to use them (including the Magic) as they do AIM-7 and AIM-9, they are not designed with the same specifications in mind nor the same "best" use one is a pure high-speed interception missile, the other a dogfighting missile.

 

Of course, you can always force a Fox 3 fighter into the defensive with a Super-530 D, but it is meant to be used with altitude and speed in mind, as for the 550, it has a shorter range than the contemporary AIM-9 due to higher drag (body diameter and lifting/control surfaces) but is way more maneuverable.

 

In the case of Su-25 or anything flying low, I wouldn't bother firing a Super 530 D and would prefer a 550 if possible at all, unless you have a clear shot, level if not from below, to make sure it doesn't hit the ground, other than that, as Jojo pointed out, it's a look-down/shoot-down AAM designed for the RDI radar.

 

Here is a doc from MATRA which is related to the F variant and is giving some seriously juicy details: The AAM (with less energy and range than the D) could hit a target at a 40 km range despite a vertical separation of 30.000 ft, clearly a completely different flying envelop than an AIM-7, high acceleration, high-speed, high altitude intercept capabilities.

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Thinder

[Thinder]

The comparison just speaks without words... not only the AIM-7 have much less drag than the 530D but it also accelerates way better... It seem odd when we know that the top speed of the 530D is Mach 4.5, or even near Mach 5 (many sources claim its top speed is near mach 5), and the AIM-7 Max speed is Mach 4...

 

I think there is clearly a problem, and i don't think the 530D's aerodynamic design justifies this behaviour.

 

This is simply wrong.

 

In practice, to reach M 5.0 with a supposedly draggier airframe (frontal area), it has to accelerate faster, G onset has to be faster.

 

It's the booster that provides this energy, not the sustainer, as for drag, between frontal area (cross section) and the induced drag of their respective lifting/maneuvering surfaces, there is no guaranty that the AIM-7 drags that much less, especially flying 0.5 M slower.

 

Not only that, but it is also what it was designed to do since it had to be capable of 40 km range and hit a target 30.000 ft above the firing platform (little detail everyone seems to oversee), I doubt very much that the Max range for the AIM-7 includes such a difference in ceiling between shooter and target.

 

In short, the AIM-7 will need more body lift and more AoA to sustain a given amount of lift due to a lower speed during most of their respective flight times.

 

AIM-7 is 8in in diameter vs 10.23in, is 3.4in shorter and weight 88 lb less, but this also mean that the kinetic energy at their peak performance is firmly on the Super 530 D side (273975000 J vs 397065000 J) at least until it starts to lose too much energy and has to increase AoA to sustain (straight) flight, then it also has more lifting surface, so body lift is not needed to the same extend.

 

Then there is the matter of their wing plans, their lift/drag ratio etc.

 

So before we make assumptions, we should look at those aspects first, I'm not at all convinced that the Sparrow is that superior, but what I am sure of is that it does not have the same flying envelop.

 

file:///D:/DCS%20World/Doc/Missile%20Aerodynamic%20Characteristics.pdf

Edited June 26, 2020 by Thinder

[jojo]

In fact, AIM-7F and later compared to Super 530D would have similar practical ranges.

But the speed profile is different. You can reach the same range with more or less the same average speed but different top depending on your thrust profile and drag.

 

The Super 530D burns for 10 to 11 seconds. The AIM-7F and later burns for 16 seconds.

 

Indeed the body diameter has an impact. From DGA historical publication, industry wanted to reduce Super 530F diameter compared to R530, but French Air Force preferred to keep the same diameter to lower technological risk.

 

At the time of Super 530F development they were worried about high and fast targets.

The body diameter has less impact in that scenario (look at AIM-54 shape, not really narrow body either).

 

Then they realised they were lagging behind in look down/ shoot down.

Mirage 2000C was developed with still high and fast target in minds, but adding look down/ shoot down. And to be fair, we were late to the party compared to F-4J and F-15A.

 

The Thomson CSF RDI radar was new and took a little longer than expected time to develop.

The Super 530D was an upgrade from Super 530F (new seeker and more impulse in the engine).

The M53 engine was adapted from a project for twin engine heavy weight fighter.

It was developed after the Pratt & Whitney - SNECMA TF306.

[Thinder]

In fact, AIM-7F and later compared to Super 530D would have similar practical ranges.

But the speed profile is different. You can reach the same range with more or less the same average speed but different top depending on your thrust profile and drag.

 

The Super 530D burns for 10 to 11 seconds. The AIM-7F and later burns for 16 seconds.

 

Indeed the body diameter has an impact. From DGA historical publication, industry wanted to reduce Super 530F diameter compared to R530, but French Air Force preferred to keep the same diameter to lower technological risk.

 

At the time of Super 530F development they were worried about high and fast targets.

The body diameter has less impact in that scenario (look at AIM-54 shape, not really narrow body either).

 

Then they realised they were lagging behind in look down/ shoot down.

Mirage 2000C was developed with still high and fast target in minds, but adding look down/ shoot down. And to be fair, we were late to the party compared to F-4J and F-15A.

 

The Thomson CSF RDI radar was new and took a little longer than expected time to develop.

The Super 530D was an upgrade from Super 530F (new seeker and more impulse in the engine).

The M53 engine was adapted from a project for twin engine heavy weight fighter.

It was developed after the Pratt & Whitney - SNECMA TF306.

 

Thanks Jojo for your contribution. I can remember some debates at the GERMAS about American weaponry, we had tons of NATO-sourced doc that I spent quite some time reading, we didn't have the Super at the time and the 530 was a real pig to condition and test.

 

As you pointed out, at a higher altitude, a larger diameter would matters less, especially during the propelled phase of the flight where the missile AoA is minimum, after that as speed comes down, body drag increases as the AAM need more AoA to keep the same amount of lift, even if it is not maneuvering.

 

That's where one also has to take into account factors such as lifting surface and shape, the MICA retains the Super 530 formula of long, narrow surfaces, participating to the missile longitudinal rigidity and possibly reducing AoA and body drag as speed decreases.

 

The debate about body drag isn't new nor is it a thing of the past with the event of ASRAAM AIM-9/MICA .

 

Surface shape and positioning if of great importance with AAMs due to their inherent loss of energy, the long/narrow shape tend to minimise loss of energy due to increased AoA and body drag, reason for the ASRAAM lifting body shape, something absent in the AIM-7 design.

 

And as you said, their speed profile is different, the AIM-7 burning 5 to 6 sec longer, I couldn't see how the Super-530 could achieve 0.5 Mach higher with a slower G onset.

 

It would be interesting to know how the AIM-7 range was computed because in the Max range of the Super-530, a climb of 30.000ft seems to be taken into account.

 

I managed to find some archival material online, some interesting drawings of the wind tunnel model which shows just how narrow the wings of the Super-530 are.

 

https://aviation.paris/en/module/xipblog/single?id=25&rewrite=Maquette-soufflerie-missile-Matra-530D&page_type=post

 

 

 

ps, I'm still waiting for my RAM to be delivered, so I didn't have the opportunity to even take the Mirage for a spin yet.:D

Edited June 26, 2020 by Thinder