S530 Range

[GGTharos]

7F raero at 40000' m1.4 is 53nm. Target parameters same, non maneuvering and head on. It's the only number I remember. I had some dates for list altitude as well but I no longer remember it. There is some good data on the E from F4 tacman, but it's not necessarily in an immediately useful format.

[OxideMako]

Really it's all our there, though perhaps not everyone can access dtic.mil

 

According to that, range of the 530D is 50km. Which is line with the jist of this thread.

Pg. 47

-http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a347910.pdf-

[ame]http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a347910.pdf[/ame]

Edited January 10, 2016 by OxideMako

[GGTharos]

According to that, 'maximum range' at some altitude, and some launch speed, against some type of target is 50km. For someone's definition of 'maximum range'. It's just not useful.

 

According to that, range of the 530D is 50km. Which is line with the jist of this thread.

[OxideMako]

According to that, 'maximum range' at some altitude, and some launch speed, against some type of target is 50km. For someone's definition of 'maximum range'. It's just not useful.

 

Don't get me wrong, not saying it should be that way at all times. I am just pointing out that that number is generally in line with the purpose of this thread. (discussing 530D range)

 

Of more note was the 530F vs D in that pdf. 35 vs 50km. I thought the only real difference was seeker in the 530D, would it really increase range by 15km? (as I would assume whatever definition of "max range" they are using would be the same circumstances for both missiles?)

[GGTharos]

IIRC the rocket motor is also different ... take AIM-7E and AIM-7F for example ... same airframe, different weights, different rocket motors and seekers. Hugely different range.

[Chrinik]

I thought the only real difference was seeker in the 530D, would it really increase range by 15km? (as I would assume whatever definition of "max range" they are using would be the same circumstances for both missiles?)

 

I think this picture clears up why the Super 530D has a longer range then the F.

 

 

It´s bigger.

[PiedDroit]

I think this picture clears up why the Super 530D has a longer range then the F.

 

 

It´s bigger.

 

I only see a bigger control section :huh:

(unless those separation lines don't mean anything).

I think the reason is elsewhere (shape, better rocket).

 

Edit: wikipedia page says that the missile is bigger only to accomodate a bigger seeker, and the rocket is more powerful.

Edited January 10, 2016 by PiedDroit

[Chrinik]

I only see a bigger control section :huh:

(unless those separation lines don't mean anything).

I think the reason is elsewhere (shape, better rocket).

 

Edit: wikipedia page says that the missile is bigger only to accomodate a bigger seeker, and the rocket is more powerful.

 

Seeker is not bigger(in radius), just more advanced, more electronics. It´s the main reason for increased length.

Fins are thinner, less drag.

Rocketmotor burns for the same time but burns more fuel in that time thus stronger, but also more room. It has also increased in size, tho not as significantly.

 

"The Super 530D retains the same general aerodynamic features and internal layout as its Super 530F predecessor, with cruciform low aspect ratio wings and cruciform aft controls. However, the stainless steel body is longer to accommodate a new radome and seeker assembly and a new and more powerful dual-thrust solid propellant motor. The Super 530D is 3.80 m long(from 3.54 m long), has a body diameter of 263 mm, a wing span of 0.62 m (from 0.88 m) and with the same warhead as the Super 530F, weighs 270 kg.(from 245 kg)"

 

- Pakdef.org

[cauldron]

I think this picture clears up why the Super 530D has a longer range then the F.

 

 

It´s bigger.

 

If the drawings are correct then, you can make some basic assumptions between them:

 

The nose cone for the 530D is a better shape than the 530F, The fins are smaller.

- in particular a better shaped nose + smaller less draggy fins = better kinematics alone due to less drag, let alone the other items you all speak of.

 

I'll leave the rocket etc, to others who have better info.

[jojo]

The length increase is due mainly to engine.

 

Super 530F burns for 6s when Super 530D burns for about 10s...

Edited January 10, 2016 by jojo

[sedenion]

The length increase us due mainly to engine.

 

Super 530F burns for 6s when Super 530D burns for about 10s...

 

I heard 11s in another forum...

[PiedDroit]

The length increase us due mainly to engine.

What is your source? Mine is not very good I admit it (wikipedia...), I'd be interested to read another.

What I read so far is that the internal architecture is the same as 530F except length increased to accomodate better seeker.

Engine is more powerful, but of similar size (internal structure).

[sedenion]

What is your source? Mine is not very good I admit it (wikipedia...), I'd be interested to read another.

What I read so far is that the internal architecture is the same as 530F except length increased to accomodate better seeker.

Engine is more powerful, but of similar size (internal structure).

 

 

Your source (wikipedia) say: "the stainless steel body is longer to accommodate a new radome and seeker assembly and a new and more powerful dual-thrust solid propellant motor."

 

:)

[PiedDroit]

Your source (wikipedia) say: "the stainless steel body is longer to accommodate a new radome and seeker assembly and a new and more powerful dual-thrust solid propellant motor."

 

:)

It also says, with a slighly different punctuation:

Le Super 530 D récupère les mêmes propriétés aérodynamiques générales et le même agencement interne que son prédécesseur le Super 530 F, avec son empennage cruciforme à l'arrière. Cependant, son corps en acier inoxydable et plus long afin de loger un nouveau radôme et une nouvelle tête chercheuse. Il est aussi doté d'un moteur plus puissant.

Which explains why I think the engine has same size (although this quote can have several different readings, I just took the most obvious to me). Anyway I'm just curious here, it doesn't matter much to me, so I'll leave this in the blurry "no enough information" zone :D Edited January 10, 2016 by PiedDroit

[SDsc0rch]

if you were indians you would be mighty warriors from the "fights with a sliderule" tribe

:rolleyes:

[Azrayen]

If it says "son corps en acier inoxydable et plus long" (grammar error included) then it should be corrected. The article, that is. ;)

[Beamscanner]

I hear that the S530 can be launched as far as 80 miles...

 

So long as the target is flying head on at mach 6.. :P

 

 

The "range" is useless if you don't know the altitude, velocity and vector of both the shooter and the target. Also, burn time by itself means nothing in terms of range.

[jojo]

I hear that the S530 can be launched as far as 80 miles...

 

So long as the target is flying head on at mach 6.. :P

 

 

The "range" is useless if you don't know the altitude, velocity and vector of both the shooter and the target. Also, burn time by itself means nothing in terms of range.

 

Between 2 similar missile such as Super 530F & Super 530D, with close top speed you can bet the burn time makes the difference. ;)

 

Unless quoted, you can also bet claimed range is the best, so high, fast & head on.

Marketing...

[OnlyforDCS]

Just to resuscitate this topic a little bit, in general in fluid dynamics a longer body will be less draggy than a shorter one (assuming all other parameters being equal and when moving in a straight line).

[Jarama]

I still don't get why a 3.8 meter long Super 530D supposed to go at a speed close to mach 4 (claimed up to mach5 and 40km range) cannot intercept anything over 15nm at 35 000 feet even with the latest Razbam changes. I mean it's not a 530 nor even a 530F.

 

Am i expecting too much from it? :unsure: (I honestly don't think so.)

What do you guys think about it now?

Edited February 19, 2016 by Jarama

[spiddx]

Well there are more parameters to consider than altitude and distance. For example what is your speed during launch? What's your target speed and aspect?

[Jarama]

Sure, but let's not go again as the previous pages, i feel that there's a simple lack of performance for a missile of this generation, size and lenght to be honest. Is it just wrong definitions or is it really impossible to face even an AIM-7 Sparrow which is more or less in the same category (talking about it's current state on the latest patch precisely, not IRL)?

[Enduro14]

ILL be honest i stay away from air to air unless its Aim9 type range. Otherwise i enjoy using the Mirage as a fast strike/cas platform when the hog makes me sleepy lol I hope all the longer range AIr to Air missles get a functional face lift

[Jarama]

ILL be honest i stay away from air to air unless its Aim9 type range. Otherwise i enjoy using the Mirage as a fast strike/cas platform when the hog makes me sleepy lol

 

Thank you for this very interesting and on topic reply. :noexpression:

[Enduro14]

Thank you for this very interesting and on topic reply. :noexpression:

 

? it expresses the frustration of how the missles are not performing to what doctrine has stated they should correct? Ill add more to the thread later after i test the new dynamics with the new patch 1.5.3. Its a discussion not a briefing.