S530 Range

[jojo]

So it appears that the S530D was meant to destroy bombers flying at high altitude.....

 

I think he was talking about AIM-7M.

 

Super 530D requirements are to take down high & fast intruders, up to M2.5/ 80000ft from supersonic firing at 50 000ft, and to take down low flying intruders.

 

This is why it wad marketed by Matra with snap up/ down of 10 000m.

 

Ballistic range depending on sources is between 35 and 40km (20-22Nm) in high altitude launch. So firing range in head on may be greater.

[GGTharos]

That's no ballistic range. That's more like a seeker/radar combination limitation, much like AIM-7.

 

If you saw the AIM-7F capability document, it lists 'maximum range' as 20nm on must about every altitude against a target moving at 0.9M with an RCS of 2m^2.

But then they list Raero at 53nm, at the SAME altitude that your Rmax is 20nm (or 22. Whatever).

 

Even more telling is that a change to the radar system increases the 'maximum range' of the AIM-7E/E2 from 24nm to 27nm under the same shooting circumstances ... the change was higher power illumination on the F-4's radar.

[openfalcon68]

Nope....I am talking of the 530.

 

I think he was talking about AIM-7M.

 

Super 530D requirements are to take down high & fast intruders, up to M2.5/ 80000ft from supersonic firing at 50 000ft, and to take down low flying intruders.

 

This is why it wad marketed by Matra with snap up/ down of 10 000m.

 

Ballistic range depending on sources is between 35 and 40km (20-22Nm) in high altitude launch. So firing range in head on may be greater.

[GGTharos]

I'm not though.

 

Just comparing it to something we have official documentation for, which is the AIM-7E/E2/F

[jojo]

This thread became a deaf discussion.

AIM-7 and Super 530D are confused.

 

There is no way a Super 530 has 53Nm Raero.

 

By the way, AIM-7E is short burn engine, while AIM-7F/M burn for 15-16s...

 

Super 530D is 10s.

Edited January 5, 2016 by jojo

[GGTharos]

So?

 

The AIM-120C has an 8sec burn time but will out-range the AIM-7 :)

 

This thread became a deaf discussion.

AIM-7 and Super 530D are confused.

 

There is no way a Super 530 has 53Nm Raero.

 

By the way, AIM-7E is short burn engine, while AIM-7F/M burn for 15-16s...

 

Super 530D is 10s.

[jojo]

Tell me AIM-7E burn time and we will talk about it...

 

It's useless crap compared to Super 530D and AIM-7M.

[GGTharos]

About 3 seconds. What does that tell you? ;)

[SDsc0rch]

I wonder how hard the data currently used is...?

 

EXACTLY

[IASGATG]

This thread became a deaf discussion.

AIM-7 and Super 530D are confused.

 

There is no way a Super 530 has 53Nm Raero.

 

By the way, AIM-7E is short burn engine, while AIM-7F/M burn for 15-16s...

 

Super 530D is 10s.

 

I'd imagine the 530D to have a slightly longer Raero at high alt and a slightly lower one at low alt.

 

Simply put, the 530D has more delta-v than the 7M, but the 530D will be more draggy. Higher you go, less drag impact per delta-v.

[jojo]

About 3 seconds. What does that tell you? ;)

 

Yep, that it will have way lower total impulse than both Super 530D and AIM-7M, and obsolete seeker.

 

So appart for showing off, why are we talking about that 1960' missile ???

Edited January 5, 2016 by jojo

[GGTharos]

What if it expended 90kg of fuel in 3 seconds?

[RuskyV]

What if it expended 90kg of fuel in 3 seconds?

 

I can do that after a good curry....

 

Didn't have much of a roof left though.

[cauldron]

Burn time alone JoJo is not a parameter you can use to make an Raero comparison. You need the Dv as rockets even with the same amount propellant can have different specific impulses, its more a how faster you want the missile to go because drag in atmosphere of a burning rocket changes depending on altitude and speed. Not to mention nozzle efficiencies are fixed per each rocket, no variables nozzles that i am aware of [correct me if i am wrong]

 

 

I think ED's reliance on DLZ charts as Kinematic limitations has been clearly and logically argued as erroneous with respect to kinematics (even on the Rear aspect only case) yet they refuse to allow the overwhelming and INDEPENDENT sources which all point to the same (they are not all the same but close enough for proving the rear aspect DLZ cases wrong!) conclusion: That the DCS missiles are kinematically underperforming.

 

I believe with the launch of the M2000c module it has come to the point of absurdly obvious that the 530D in DCS has become a far WVR missile or very short range BVR missile.

 

1. In game it has zero chance of a look down shoot down of a target flying at or near its published ability to shoot down, and

2. i'll eat my own sock if anyone can show a viable tacview of the 530D intercepting a MACH3 level non maneuvering target at 80k feet at any range even vertical [approx 5NM if launched from 50k feet].

 

The Point is: The missile, given a DLZ basis apparently, simply can't do its mission - which is proof enough for me that something is wrong.

 

 

My conclusion from that is that the underlying basis for Kinematics cannot be based a from a real life apposing force DLZ chart can't be forced anymore toward the ridiculous... Also why does the 530D have a AIM54 cross-sectional drag profile? is this a fudge factor to make it match to some unknown parameter?

 

...just look at how the west totally underestimated the R73 until germany unified, then the "oh shit" moment and everyone got helmet mounted high off boresight capability asap. I wish ED would open up to even investigating thoroughly all the presented data and without pride goes over it. If DCS is EDs baby then they should, instead of posted prideful reactions. IMO

 

I don't see much change coming, its not a SIM anymore in my eyes its just another game that looks really really good. To personally see real world F-16 pilot have explicatives to say about this raises a red flag for me, personally.

 

I can't wait for the MOD to be completed, hopefully a server will soon advertise its use of the MOD and i am sure the sim'ers will come to that server, and it will be a place for the newcomers to graduate to after getting their teeth into dcs. One can hope....

Edited January 5, 2016 by cauldron
typos+ 50k to 80k adjustment.

[jojo]

What if it expended 90kg of fuel in 3 seconds?

 

What if you stop you stop inventing figures to try to be right ???

1- 90kg of propellant in AIM-7E weighting around 197kg would break YOUR 34% rule :music_whistling:

2- Mk 38 rocket engine weight 152.3lbs/ 69 kg for AIM-7E Vs Mk 58 rocket engine weighting 211.4lbs/ 96kg for AIM-7M.

 

AIM-7M weight 510lbs/ 231kg.

 

And I assume engine weight to be loaded engine...

 

http://enu.kz/repository/2011/AIAA-2011-6941.pdf

 

And what if everyone here stop assuming French can't outperform a 1962 missile in 1980' ?

Edited January 5, 2016 by jojo

[cauldron]

What if you stop you stop inventing figures to try to be right ???

 

lets try not to get hot under the collar... we need this to be a debate, not a fight. thanks.

[cauldron]

And what if everyone here stop assuming French can't outperform a 1962 missile in 1980' ?

 

Eagle Dynamics apparently is.:(

[IASGATG]

I don't think anyone in this thread is saying that the 530D has a short range that the 7E2, or the 7F. Probably has a longer range than the 7M too!

[GGTharos]

What if you tried to the get the point?

 

A single parameter won't tell you that much about the missile; we're already well aware of the actual propellant masses (not just engine mass) for many missiles.

 

If you want total impulse, you need to know each stage's mass and ISP. Even then, that won't tell you the entire story: If you had an enormous amount of fuel but a tiny ISP, that missile wouldn't even go anywhere.

 

Even then that's just a benchmark because thrust is tempered by the missile's mass, as well as its aerodynamics; if that wasn't enough, it's also changed by altitude and importantly, by the design of the rocket nozzle.

 

There's a lot of stuff to know, and 'tell me what the burn time is' is a pointless question for comparison. You need to know all this other stuff, which you pretty much proved in the rest of your post ;)

 

What if you stop you stop inventing figures to try to be right ???

[jojo]

What if you tried to the get the point?

 

A single parameter won't tell you that much about the missile; we're already well aware of the actual propellant masses (not just engine mass) for many missiles.

 

If you want total impulse, you need to know each stage's mass and ISP. Even then, that won't tell you the entire story: If you had an enormous amount of fuel but a tiny ISP, that missile wouldn't even go anywhere.

 

Even then that's just a benchmark because thrust is tempered by the missile's mass, as well as its aerodynamics; if that wasn't enough, it's also changed by altitude and importantly, by the design of the rocket nozzle.

 

There's a lot of stuff to know, and 'tell me what the burn time is' is a pointless question for comparison. You need to know all this other stuff, which you pretty much proved in the rest of your post ;)

 

I know all that, you're just trying to make diversion here. What is your contribution to this thread ?

 

If you know propellant weight why throw BS figures in the thread ? (60kg for AIM-7M, 56.7kg for Super 530D in DCS)

After "what if 90kg of propellant ?", something you won't see on this class of missile, here comes "what if tiny ISP ?". :doh:

 

Well, that thread is not about "what if" missile.

For the record, Magic 2 and Super 530F already use CTPB propellant (I let you find if your interested), and it can't be called "tiny ISP".

 

I don't pretend Super 530D is performing exactly like AIM-7M, yet it's grossly underperforming to anything else in its category, and it's absurd. Top speed is well below known figures, even with high altitude supersonic launches.

 

So tell me, besides explaining us how much ignorant we are, what is your contribution to the topic ?

Edited January 6, 2016 by jojo

[GGTharos]

So tell me, besides explaining us how much ignorant we are, what is your contribution to the topic ?

 

I create and recommend in-game drag and lift profiles of missiles to ED (whether they are accepted or not is another story). What's yours?

[cauldron]

Guys, this is an important thread.... take the Cock Waving somewhere else please.

Jojo please stop bickering, GG please let it go... getting into a fight in the thread derails it, which neither of you want.

[Hook47]

Jesus... The pissing contests have reached new levels here on the M2000 forums.

 

Off to the AJS 37 side of things.

[sedenion]

Hi,

 

I would to come back to this source:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2624424&postcount=266

 

Does anyone know what "interception distance" means in this context ?

[jojo]

Hi,

 

I would to come back to this source:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2624424&postcount=266

 

Does anyone know what "interception distance" means in this context ?

 

Missile shot 50km from incoming target, and the missile strike the target at 35km from launch point.

The missing data is missile's flight time...