MobiSev Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 (edited) How do they compare in game? Range, drag, etc. Edited September 29, 2019 by MobiSev removed a question Modules owned: FC3, M-2000C, Mig-21bis, F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, KA-50, Mi-8, F-14A&B, JF-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razo+r Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 We can't compare how they compare in real life simply because we don't even know how the 120 behaves due to the lack of public informations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MobiSev Posted September 29, 2019 Author Share Posted September 29, 2019 We can't compare how they compare in real life simply because we don't even know how the 120 behaves due to the lack of public informations. yeah, i prob should have known that. How about in game? Looks like the max range at 24,000 feet was around 20nm, maybe a little more. What's the range of a 120C at that alt? Modules owned: FC3, M-2000C, Mig-21bis, F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, KA-50, Mi-8, F-14A&B, JF-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeriaGloria Posted September 29, 2019 Share Posted September 29, 2019 As far as we know the current one in game is WIP, it’s range outperforms the AMRAAM but that will change. I would expect good range performance, it may have a thick AIM-7/R-77 diameter, but the rear of the missile is tapered for less drag and those fins are a lot slippery then R-77 fins Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MobiSev Posted September 29, 2019 Author Share Posted September 29, 2019 As far as we know the current one in game is WIP, it’s range outperforms the AMRAAM but that will change. I would expect good range performance, it may have a thick AIM-7/R-77 diameter, but the rear of the missile is tapered for less drag and those fins are a lot slippery then R-77 fins from what I have heard from others, the 120 is under performing in the range aspect. Maybe the SD-10 is just more accurate to life? Hopefully, the range performance of the SD-10 will not change, and makes ED work faster on updating their own missiles. Modules owned: FC3, M-2000C, Mig-21bis, F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, KA-50, Mi-8, F-14A&B, JF-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeriaGloria Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) It used to have twice the burn time https://streamable.com/cupzi Maybe it really does burn that long, the rocket propellant is supposed to be different from R-77 EDIT: today’s video seemed to show about the range we expect IMO Edited September 30, 2019 by AeriaGloria Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rinao0o Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 From the recent video SD10's max range seems to be at 22 nm/25kft on 700kt closure rate. And the NEZ is 12nm, pretty close to a 120B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepin1234 Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) I am very curious about the Fighter Collection Group next move in ECM regards after having this longer range actor against the low realistic radar behavior with ECM inside 50km. If they make a move now to protect the aim-120 launcher after all the request been made to change this fake super TWS and lock hold it forever inside this fantastic 50km they keep up like a bonus. If they make a move after this missile get in the game then we will see all the request made before as a laugh in our face. Edited September 30, 2019 by pepin1234 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MobiSev Posted September 30, 2019 Author Share Posted September 30, 2019 From the recent video SD10's max range seems to be at 22 nm/25kft on 700kt closure rate. And the NEZ is 12nm, pretty close to a 120B What's the 120C's in game max range at that alt? Modules owned: FC3, M-2000C, Mig-21bis, F-5E, AJS-37 Viggen, F/A-18C, KA-50, Mi-8, F-14A&B, JF-17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylkhan Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 As far as we know the current one in game is WIP, it’s range outperforms the AMRAAM but that will change. Why, it seems to be correct, there is absolutely no reason that the AIM120 outrange the SD-10. "The missile is widely credited with superior range performance to the AIM-120A-C variants." http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 :smilewink:Why, it seems to be correct, there is absolutely no reason that the AIM120 outrange the SD-10. "The missile is widely credited with superior range performance to the AIM-120A-C variants." http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM.html You can asses this website credibility about missile range with that kind of quote: In terms of seekers, the baseline semi-active radar guided variants are equipped with a 9B-1101K seeker, these being the short burn R-27R1 credited with 43 NMI* range *79.6km for pepin1234 :smilewink: Even MiG-29 and Su-27SK manuals don't claim that kind of range :music_whistling: Mirage fanatic ! I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylkhan Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 You can asses this website credibility about missile range with that kind of quote: Don't understand what you mean, but what the point about about the credibility of this website. The owner of the website : Carlo Kopp has a PhD and MSc degrees Publications Kopp has published in many prominent defense and security publications on matters of aerospace technology, stealth, information warfare and Australian defence policy.[1] These included Defence Today, Air International, Journal of Electronic Defense, Jane's Missiles and Rockets, Australian Aviation and the Asia Pacific Defence Reporter. It's not enough for credibilty ? perhaps you know better :) or perhaps he says things that some people don't want to hear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 Don't understand what you mean, but what the point about about the credibility of this website. The owner of the website : Carlo Kopp has a PhD and MSc degrees Publications Kopp has published in many prominent defense and security publications on matters of aerospace technology, stealth, information warfare and Australian defence policy.[1] These included Defence Today, Air International, Journal of Electronic Defense, Jane's Missiles and Rockets, Australian Aviation and the Asia Pacific Defence Reporter. It's not enough for credibilty ? perhaps you know better :) or perhaps he says things that some people don't want to hear The range he gives is over twice the range given for R-27R1 in pilot’s manual. Also the site was used to promote F-22 buy by Australia (yeah, I know F-22 isn’t in production anymore and wasn’t available for export). The point is exaggerating sino-russian hardware performance serves a political purpose. China military power growth is a major point of concern for Australia. From my point of view, even if this website has a lot of interesting articles, this is a lobbying relay, and performances should be taken with a grain of salt. Understanding the motives and intentions of authors may be as useful if not more than knowing about their PHD. Even Jane’s is about open sources and don’t tell the full story. I don’t care about ballistic range of a missile shot @ M2.3 & FL500... Mirage fanatic ! I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backspace340 Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 There's text from an interview with the SD-10's deputy chief designer floating around in the recesses of the internet (it's quite old and I think the primary source / where it was first transcribed has disappeared), where the designer says the SD-10 should perform between the 120B and 120C: Ahout the max shot range: The Deputy Chief Designer of SD-10 said: The parameter of “max range” is determined by the relative position of missile’s carrier and the target aircraft. The assumed conditions by various countries are different. So what the Russian said the max range 100Km may not be better than what we said the max range 70Km. The max range 70Km in SD-10 marketing promotion brochure is measured under the condition that both the missile’s carrier and the target aircraft are flying at 10Km’s altitude, both the missile carrier’s velocity and target’s velocity are 1.2Mach, their flying direction is reverse(head to head). AIM120’s test condition is similar to SD-10. However Russian’s propaganda is a little more exaggerated. For example, R-77’s test condition is: carrier and target are flying at 20Km’s altitude; each has 1.5M’s velocity, head to head flying. Under such a condition, the max range is 100Km. The problem is higher altitude means less aerodynamic resistance, plus the faster velocity for both the carrier and the target. The range is naturally longer. So you shouldn’t only consider parameters isolated with each other. In fact, our SD-10’s range is better than AIM-120A/B, a litter less than AIM-120C, almost same as R-77’s. About ranking MRAAM: Designer : It’s not easy to rank …..Various persons have various standards… First of all, Euro’s Meteor should be No.1. This missile’s performance is very advanced, its range reaches 160Km.It belongs to next generation missiles. Next, I think the AIM-120C is more advanced. For original AIM-120 missile, whatever components, materials and craft are world first class. Now it is upgraded to Type C, it makes new progress on range, precision and anti-jamming capability. Following, It should be our SD-10. Then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Active Skyflash at equal fourth. Then Israel’s Derby, Derby has a comparable overall performance with the above missiles, but its range is relatively short. Last of all, MICA, its tech is not bad, however it’s a tradeoff between BVR and dogfight, so is naturally inferior to dedicated MRAAM. Reporter asked : Our SD-10 has a good ranking. Why do you say our SD-10 is more advanced than R-77? Designer: We adopted some technologies more advanced than R-77’s, so SD-10’s overall performance is better than R-77’s. For instance, our strap-down initial navigation system, signal processing system are more advanced than R-77’s. Our missile was developed relatively later than R-77.Some new technologies were not mature when R-77 was developed, so R-77 didn’t use the new technologies, but when SD-10 was developed, the new technologies became mature, so we adopted the new technologies in SD-10. Best source I can find for it right now is here: https://forums.voz.vn/showthread.php?t=3233336&page=21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLTeo Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 ausairpower also includes, among other things, this brilliant quote: ...the PAK-FA renders all legacy US fighter aircraft, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, strategically irrelevant and non-viable after the PAK-FA achieves IOC in 2015. Detailed strategic analysis indicates that the only viable strategic survival strategy now remaining for the United States is to terminate the Joint Strike Fighter program immediately, redirect freed funding to further develop the F-22 Raptor, and employ variants of the F-22 aircraft as the primary fighter aircraft for all United States and Allied TACAIR needs. So yea, not exactly the most reliable of websites... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo Posted October 1, 2019 Share Posted October 1, 2019 ausairpower also includes, among other things, this brilliant quote: [/font] So yea, not exactly the most reliable of websites... Thanks for this brilliant demonstration. :thumbup: So yeah, pro-F-22 lobbying website. Radar and missiles ranges usually overrated. Thanks @backspace340 too. Interesting interview with what seems to be a fair assessment. :thumbup: Mirage fanatic ! I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keks Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Oh god, the "I, a frequent reader of the wikipedias dont agree with this source and therefore have to discredit the writer (who writes for a couple of well regarded international and national publications) because otherwise I would be wrong" arguments are pure cringe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylkhan Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) :smilewink: Even MiG-29 and Su-27SK manuals don't claim that kind of range :music_whistling: Do you really think that manuals written many years ago by Russians, will give "secret defense" informations. Think a little please. Russians are like French, very hard to have real informations. Thanks for this brilliant demonstration. :thumbup:. The only demonstration i see, is your ignorance. F-35 doens't compete against sukhoi, then he is totally right. For your information in the encyclopedia of russian arms, written by russian military specialists and supervised by Vladdimir Mikhailov "general of the army, commander in chief of the air force" The max launch distance of the R27R is : 80 Km ! I let you to do the conversion in miles, you seems to like that. Oh god, the "I, a frequent reader of the wikipedias dont agree with this source and therefore have to discredit the writer (who writes for a couple of well regarded international and national publications) because otherwise I would be wrong" arguments are pure cringe. No problem,people like to know better than others, even when they know...nothing :) Edited October 2, 2019 by sylkhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeriaGloria Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) I can attest that jojo is not ignorant, you want to compare manual reading to Wikipedia go ahead you’ll make a lot of friends here. Educated people can have agendas like normal people, a PhD isn’t going to stop them. He is just not an authority on missile ranges, here his page on PLA air weapons(https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-PLA-AAM.html), no range mentioned for SD-10, four of his five sources are himself and the other one is a paper on a site that doesn’t exist anymore so we have no idea about ANY of the info. Why would I trust someone with a vested interest in his politics affecting his “research?” Same as the Chief of a nations Air Force posting on their Air Force website(they will use the longest range data regardless if it only achieves that at 12000 meters and 1.5 Mach on a target below). How can you even trust missile ranges where the conditions aren’t stated??? I’m not trying to argue, I’m just dumbfounded that someone would so blindly trust a hawk on a website who has a vested interest in selling a particular type For example, this was probably the result of exactly what he wanted https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-130308-1.html The PDF for the letter to the Defence Minister https://www.ausairpower.net/PDF-A/LoT-Fighter-DP-022008-3_FR.pdf Edited October 2, 2019 by AeriaGloria Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeriaGloria Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Here’s something else, in the recent Kashmir skirmish earlier this year, India could not get first shot against AMRAAM with R-77 saying they could not fire beyond 80km. So they went to Russia to buy new weapons with over 100km range(after being refused to integrate the 100km Derby-ER). So India has trouble killing over 80km with it, Carlo Kopp mentions a 54nm range that converts to about 100 km. He is using best case scenario from manufacturer, and not all manufacturers test the same. One of his better articles actually mentions testing differences. Even Wikipedia mentions 80-100km max range. Point is, I trust Carlo as much as I would trust open source info, he is not the eye of Sauron https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/outgunned-by-pakistan-f-16s-iaf-plans-to-re-arm-its-sukhois-with-israeli-missiles-2044172 https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html#mozTocId926285 I like his articles for general open source info and he finds really good pictures, but I always read it with a grain of salt Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylkhan Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Same as the Chief of a nations Air Force posting on their Air Force website Who spoke about a website ? I just say that i have sources (not internet) that confirm Carlo Kopp for the range of r27r, nothing more. Please reread carefully my post I’m not trying to argue, Good idea I’m just dumbfounded that someone would so blindly trust a hawk on a website who has a vested interest in selling a particular type I don't believed anyone, i just report a fact, Carlo Kopp is right for the range of the r27r, because my sources confirm that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylkhan Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 Point is, I trust Carlo as much as I would trust open source info, he is not the eye of Sauron Then stop giving urls of open sources infos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylkhan Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) Carlo Kopp mentions a 54nm range that converts to about 100 km. He is using best case scenario from manufacturer, You are correct, but everybody do that (US included), and some tend to overrate their hardware to sell more, but that's another story. Edited October 2, 2019 by sylkhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AeriaGloria Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) I like some of his articles, I learn a few things, I do trust him a little bit. Just pretty skeptical. Same as I would with any open source info that doesn’t give launch conditions most of the time. I apologize for going so far off topic and writing so much, I was in the heat of the moment, and the topic of people trying to sell the F-22 and restart production is pretty close to me. I got too passionate, but I think originally jojo was just trying to warn you that that site may have certain biases that color their perception, and too keep that in mind for the future Going to our original conversation, I was a little unclear. The test shown on the initial PL-12(what it was identified as in F10) showed a greater range then all AMRAAM variants in game. It was indicated by Deka that that would change. In addition, ED has said they intend to do the same rework of R-27 and AIM-120 that they did with the AIM-7 for the Hornet, which would most likely increase range. In the original thread on this forum by the person who performed that test, it was hoped by some that the greater range in part reflected more realistic performance even if it was too much. We don’t know if on launch PL-12 will have more range then in game AMRAAM variants, or actually be in between in game variant of B and C AMRAAM in regards to range. The recent academic video seemed to indicate that the range was changed versus the first version that in the game months ago so that proves one thing Edited October 2, 2019 by AeriaGloria Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowFrost Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 (edited) I like some of his articles, I learn a few things, I do trust him a little bit. Just pretty skeptical. Same as I would with any open source info that doesn’t give launch conditions most of the time. I apologize for going so far off topic and writing so much, I was in the heat of the moment, and the topic of people trying to sell the F-22 and restart production is pretty close to me. I got too passionate, but I think originally jojo was just trying to warn you that that site may have certain biases that color their perception, and too keep that in mind for the future Going to our original conversation, I was a little unclear. The test shown on the initial PL-12(what it was identified as in F10) showed a greater range then all AMRAAM variants in game. It was indicated by Deka that that would change. In addition, ED has said they intend to do the same rework of R-27 and AIM-120 that they did with the AIM-7 for the Hornet, which would most likely increase range. In the original thread on this forum by the person who performed that test, it was hoped by some that the greater range in part reflected more realistic performance even if it was too much. We don’t know if on launch PL-12 will have more range then in game AMRAAM variants, or actually be in between in game variant of B and C AMRAAM in regards to range. The recent academic video seemed to indicate that the range was changed versus the first version that in the game months ago so that proves one thing I was the one that did the first tests on the PL-12 when it was released to the game files. (On my own, not affiliated with Deka) Lets call this version 1. I had first assumed that the initial performance of version 1 was making up for DCS limitations (IE lofting). But even then the missile, version 1, over performed by a good margin in straight line comparisons. The two comparisons I made to data were, to a interview from a SD-10 designer and AIM-120C-5 CFD thats been floating around for a while. The SD-10 performance stated by the engineer had a range of 70km when launch and target aircraft where moving at mach 1.2 at 10,000 meters. This put it between the aim-120C and the 120B by their standards. It over performed against both data sets by a good margin. 20% or more at 10,000 meters. The PL-12 version 1, traveled 80km under those conditions, which AFAIK, should not be the case. As the 70km referenced above is off the rail range, not the missile traveled distance (I believe, correct me if I am wrong). A comparison of DCS performance is shown below. Looking at Deka's A2A video, it appears the missile now fits in between the 120C and 120B as it supposedly should IRL. Edit- the referenced data below is not the most accurate, I got the climb/descent much closer to a straight line in tests after that, it did not change the results by much at all. I would safely say, margin of error is +/- .3NM. The chart should say Nautical miles, not miles. It was corrected in later charts :) Second Edit- the referenced interview is the same as the one reported early in this forum/thread. Post #14 for those curious. Edited October 3, 2019 by ShadowFrost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts