[NOT BUG]SD-10 has same range as AIM-54 Mk.60?

[Airhunter]

See attached tacview and the graph below for reference. Fix it. I don't care what you are smoking but fix it.

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by L0op8ack

[AeriaGloria]

This seems to show Mach and altitude? What about range? Did they both hit at what range? After 45 seconds it loses altitude advantage, and for the whole rest of the graph both missiles are above Mach 3 mostly, if both were to glide at the same speed and same altitude of course the SD-10 will have less drag and bleed it’s speed slower.

 

What was the actual range traveled? Becuase that Phoenix spent its extra 20 seconds of burn to maintain a higher Mach for 20 seconds of thegraph, so what was the range?

 

If you want to change things best not to call someone as smoking something, we have been around this topic many times before and everyone wants the missiles to behave right

 

You’re graph is not too unexpected IMO, the Phoenix is achieving a higher Mach becuase of its 30 second burn, but it decelerates much faster becuase of its fatter body. So when you have both running a similar loft profile, I don’t see anything completely unexpected

 

Without airspeed over distance it’s hard to say

Edited May 7, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[J20Stronk]

Took a look at the .acmi:

 

42000ft for both launcher and target. No defensive moves whatsoever from stationary E-3.

 

AIM-54 did a "Jerk" maneuver that killed a lot of its energy (you can see it the moment it happened in both your graph and the .acmi) otherwise it would've hit first with a lot more energy. HB needs to look into it.

 

SD-10 did not do it thanks to the new lofting guidance.

 

Also, the 120 would've hit the E-3 as well, but the current loft leaves it hanging way out for too long (it would have hit going Mach 2.9).

 

 

Overall: nice cherry-picked parameters. Good luck getting a JF up to M1.35 at 42000 with a combat load against a non-maneuvering target. If both 54 and 120 didn't have crap lofts, they'd would've hit first with more energy.

Edited May 7, 2020 by J20Stronk

[AeriaGloria]

Which plane did you try 120 with? I know it’s messed up for F-16 but works better on everything else

[J20Stronk]

Which plane did you try 120 with? I know it’s messed up for F-16 but works better on everything else

 

it's in his attached .acmi.

 

You can see he fires an SD, 54, and 120C from an F-15.

 

Ignoring the fact that he is in a superior high-altitude launch platform going M 1.35 at 42000ft and his target is a "dumb" AWACS, all 3 missiles would have hit.

 

What makes the SD-10 superior to all 3 missiles is its loft. The last patch gave the SD-10 hands down the best, smoothest loft of all 3 missiles.

 

The 120's is too high and too long, and the 54 does the "overcorrection jerk", as I call it when it goes pitbull. Hence, you see a sharp drop in speed in his graph (went from M 5.0 to 3.75 in 1 second :megalol: )

 

The SD-10 does have a drag advantage over the AIM-54 (it's a smaller diameter than a Phoenix) and a slight turning energy retention advantage over the AIM-120 (subject to change once the 120 CFD research is complete and Dual-thrust/impulse is implemented properly), but ultimately the SD-10 is no "god missile". In fact it eats chaff like crazy and can easily be defeated with a steep dive and some chaff.

Edited May 8, 2020 by J20Stronk

[AeriaGloria]

Ah thanks

[Harlikwin]

it's in his attached .acmi.

 

You can see he fires an SD, 54, and 120C from an F-15.

 

Ignoring the fact that he is in a superior high-altitude launch platform going M 1.35 at 42000ft and his target is a "dumb" AWACS, all 3 missiles would have hit.

 

What makes the SD-10 superior to all 3 missiles is its loft. The last patch gave the SD-10 hands down the best, smoothest loft of all 3 missiles.

 

The 120's is too high and too long, and the 54 does the "overcorrection jerk", as I call it when it goes pitbull. Hence, you see a sharp drop in speed in his graph (went from M 5.0 to 3.75 in 1 second :megalol: )

 

The SD-10 does have a drag advantage over the AIM-54 (it's a smaller diameter of a Phoenix) and a slight turning energy retention advantage over the AIM-120 (subject to change once the 120 CFD research is complete and Dual-thrust/impulse is implemented properly), but ultimately the SD-10 is no "god missile". In fact it eats chaff like crazy and can easily be defeated with a steep dive and some chaff.

 

Id really love to see any sort of loft logic docs for any of those missiles.

[foxwxl]

So, do U actually know that AIM120 can score a PVP kill over 60NM and of course out range the MK60?

 

Should this be fixed too?

[ShadowFrost]

I will be following this one....

[ShadowFrost]

So, do U actually know that AIM120 can score a PVP kill over 60NM and of course out range the MK60?

 

Should this be fixed too?

 

OF COURSE IT SHOULD, nothing can out-range glorious MK60. (That is sarcasm)

 

I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a kinetic evaluation of the missiles recently to determine if something is actually wrong, or just varying stages of improved guidance causing performance to be difference....

 

I actually might know a guy that tested this stuff before, maybe I'll go ask him if he's found anything.

[panton41]

I know DCS doesn't model them, but part of why the AIM-54 was taken out of service was because newer blocks of AIM-120 were within spitting distance of the Phoenix's range at about half the cost (inflation adjusted), a third the weight and the aircraft that launched them could carry (and land with) substantially more and required less maintenance.

[Harlikwin]

Kinetics are on thing. I bet the mk60 has way more fuel than either missile. I also bet its way draggier than either aim 120 or sd10.

[foxwxl]

OF COURSE IT SHOULD, nothing can out-range glorious MK60. (That is sarcasm)

 

I'd be curious to see if anyone has done a kinetic evaluation of the missiles recently to determine if something is actually wrong, or just varying stages of improved guidance causing performance to be difference....

 

I actually might know a guy that tested this stuff before, maybe I'll go ask him if he's found anything.

 

SD-10 and AIM120 has greatly improve its high altitude range with the new LOFT API that is recently intrduced by ED. The aero dynamic part of the missile is not touched.

 

HB AIM54 and all other missile is still using to old loft API which is well known to consume A LOT of energy on the loft turn and PN turn, which is basically useless on preserving energy. U can also figure that out on the ACMI.

 

The new API has VERY GOOD trajectory and AOA control, no more useless high G. If you have no idea how good it is, I can tell you that it boost at least 40-50% high altitude range for AIM-120C. Once the new API has fitted onto the AIM54, it will surely guarantee a deadly range around 60-80NM at high altitude.

 

So, there is nothing need to be fixed. If you want to test the range, do it on low altitude and WITHOUT LOFT, you will see the true kinetic range of any missile.

(PS. I've done missile range test too many times once a big change occurs:D)

[ShadowFrost]

SD-10 and AIM120 has greatly improve its high altitude range with the new LOFT API that is recently intrduced by ED. The aero dynamic part of the missile is not touched.

 

HB AIM54 and all other missile is still using to old loft API which is well known to consume A LOT of energy on the loft turn and PN turn, which is basically useless on preserving energy. U can also figure that out on the ACMI.

 

The new API has VERY GOOD trajectory and AOA control, no more useless high G. If you have no idea how good it is, I can tell you that it boost at least 40-50% high altitude range for AIM-120C. Once the new API has fitted onto the AIM54, it will surely guarantee a deadly range around 60-80NM at high altitude.

 

So, there is nothing need to be fixed. If you want to test the range, do it on low altitude and WITHOUT LOFT, you will see the true kinetic range of any missile.

(PS. I've done missile range test too many times once a big change occurs:D)

 

Yes we are in agreement, I was more referencing the OP's argument. Looking at the two missiles, it would appear to be the new guidance rules/lofting increasing range (as it should) with the 54 not getting such treatment yet causing the performance miss match.

(And I recently did a straight-line comparison, but not as detailed as I have done previously, and found the order of performance mostly the same)

 

Nothing wrong directly with the SD10, 54,or 120 in kinetic performance, just the 54 needs its guidance update to be comparable again.

Edited May 8, 2020 by ShadowFrost

[shaHeen-1]

Lol it's even obvious from the graph that the problem is with Phoenix. Why the oof are you coming here? Go to heatblur. Or maybe that's how the ancient Phoenix worked. Too bad.

[ShadowFrost]

Lol it's even obvious from the graph that the problem is with Phoenix. Why the oof are you coming here? Go to heatblur. Or maybe that's how the ancient Phoenix worked. Too bad.

 

I highly doubt that is how the phoenix worked(s) as all missiles used to do that and it is a byproduct of DCS. (Specifically, the massive G-pull when turning active) And most still do, the exception being the SD10 and 120 which even then, is quite a recent addition. It will just take time for heatblur to update their modeling to the new API.

 

(Which I actually believe they did once already but ran into some issue)

Nothing against Heatblur, they do a great job as well, development just takes time.

Edited May 8, 2020 by ShadowFrost
Grammar, Clarity

[shaHeen-1]

My comment was referring to op just to be clear

[AeriaGloria]

There’s been tons of boost sustain motors in DCS, Phoenix is boost sustain, AMRAAM A and B are boost sustain

 

The AMRAAM seems to likely be not that far from finished, it does really well

[SuumCuique]

The only thing that your graph shows, is that the SD-10 has a good guidance system modeled, while the one in the Aim-54 does a 10.5G turn, throwing away a lot of its speed and energy.

 

 

So you are complaining, about the first and so far only missile in DCS that has good guidance and demand a nerf...

[paco2002]

The only thing that your graph shows, is that the SD-10 has a good guidance system modeled, while the one in the Aim-54 does a 10.5G turn, throwing away a lot of its speed and energy.

 

 

So you are complaining, about the first and so far only missile in DCS that has good guidance and demand a nerf...

^This

[L0op8ack]

emmm, it seems that he just hate more correct missile trajectory, especially it's done by Chinese.

Edited May 9, 2020 by L0op8ack

[Shadowless]

The development of guidance technology and trajectory design after AIM-54 helps a lot in optimizing missile perfermance. Without changing solid rocket motor and aerodynamic design, the AIM-120D extend nearly 30% range than AIM-120C just by re-design trajectory and guidance law.

[shaHeen-1]

Also it's possible Phoenix lost lock in that graph. I've had it happen often. Although I'm not quite sure why aim54 drag is so low. It should lose energy much faster than sd10 since it's so thicc.

[Kazansky222]

^This

 

Its not often I find common sense posts in these forums.... but when I do a :thumbup: is warranted.

[Tiger-II]

Your thread title should read: "AIM-54 has same range as SD-10". You posted in the wrong forum.

 

* SMH *

 

AIM-120C is nearly there from videos I've seen. Looking good.

 

As already stated, AIM-54 has a major glitch at pitbull, which has existed pretty much since release.

 

SD-10 would even do that in some situations.

 

Nice graph! Looks like the SD-10 has about nailed it.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Tiger-II