SD-10

[foxwxl]

12.000 meters Mach 1.1 vs a 10.000 meters target below m1. 120km, SD-10 arrives at more speed than even the MK60 phoenix . If the battery life was even higher, the missile would kill things 150-200km out.

 

This is nowhere near 20.000 meters, yet its also nowhere near 70km. What is going on there? Unless the Chinese national standard is 6000 vs 6000 meters, your missile is clearly overperforming.

 

[ATTACH]240224[/ATTACH]

 

If AIM-54 switch to new loft API, and does not consider the battery life, it can easily reach an effective range up to 160KM and MAX range around 200KM.

 

So, don't use the phoenix to prove anything right now.

[Chiron]

If AIM-54 switch to new loft API, and does not consider the battery life, it can easily reach an effective range up to 160KM and MAX range around 200KM.

 

So, don't use the phoenix to prove anything right now.

 

Fox did u saw GS video about Aim-120C shoot from 60nm ????

 

i wanna know your opinion about Aim-120c energy bleeding near to none and also regaining speed in Climb and in Max trk file look at SD-10 in Climb it lose energy and ofc in falling Part both maintaining the energy according to Gravity Force no Complaining about that

[Tiger-II]

The biggest problem is people are intentionally taking the stated range of the missile as the absolute maximum range it can fly. It simply is not true!!!

 

It's safe to say Max1mus has an agenda to get the effectiveness of the SD-10 reduced, even if he is providing tracks.

 

It's not possible to fire the SD-10 at a target 160 km away because the launch aircraft RADAR can't possibly see the target, so the upper bound here is not the missile, but the RADAR!!!

 

The exception would be something like an E-3A where the JF-17 can see this to the range limit of 80 NM. Good luck shooting it!

 

As a counter-argument I will shoot massive RCS targets at max range using a variety of profiles.

 

Also, while the missile has SLIGHTLY lower drag in the supersonic regime, it has FAR TOO MUCH drag in the transonic region. This more than makes up for the "over-performance" earlier in the flight, and denies the missile critical energy during its highest maneuvering time (end-game).

 

Time people calmed down, and accepted Red Air have a damn good and well-modelled (not over-modelled) missile to rival Blue Air.

 

I'm just sick of this "it's too OP!!" when missiles in DCS still have many issues (but they are now being addressed, which is great).

[foxwxl]

Fox did u saw GS video about Aim-120C shoot from 60nm ????

 

i wanna know your opinion about Aim-120c energy bleeding near to none and also regaining speed in Climb and in Max trk file look at SD-10 in Climb it lose energy and ofc in falling Part both maintaining the energy according to Gravity Force no Complaining about that

 

GS video is from the new loft API testing stage, which the AIM-120 haven't change its motor and Cx0,etc. So there is no meaning still questioning the performance in that video.

(But we do notice the new loft API from that video:D)

 

Currently, AIM-120C can not fully benifit from the long range lofting trajectory, since the vertex is quite high for long range shot, 120 will lose too many speed during the climb phase thus lower the average speed(usually M2.5-3). But the loft trajectory still extand it range effectively, just not the most effective.

 

For SD-10, it has a longer motor phase and higher top speed, so it can reach the peak much quickly than 120, and this will benifit the energy maintain. But, you know SD-10 is easy to notch, so, shit.:lol:

 

So, if the AIM-54 switch to the new API, the 27 second boosting phase will greatly help the missile in climb phase, thus it will reach a very formidable range and average speed (ie Mach 4-5 during most of the flight).

Edited June 18, 2020 by foxwxl

[Tiger-II]

Jeff can fly at 41000 ft at Mach 1.1 with AA load if you start higher and descend.

 

With an AA load she gets sufficiently draggy. If you have wing tanks you can pretty much forget exceeding Mach 0.98.

 

As with most aircraft, to BVR successfully you will need to punch any tanks.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Tiger-II

[Kumabit]

12.000 meters Mach 1.1 vs a 10.000 meters target below m1. 120km, SD-10 arrives at more speed than even the MK60 phoenix . If the battery life was even higher, the missile would kill things 150-200km out.

 

This is nowhere near 20.000 meters, yet its also nowhere near 70km. What is going on there? Unless the Chinese national standard is 6000 vs 6000 meters, your missile is clearly overperforming.

 

[ATTACH]240224[/ATTACH]

 

If you think anything is wrong, prove it with legit resource and data. If you can't, shut your mouth and accept. One thing you can't deny is the developers have wayyyyy more resources and real life data than you. I bet you can't even make a constraint diagram of the SD10 with the "single digit data" on your hand

Edited June 18, 2020 by Kumabit

[L0op8ack]

Fox did u saw GS video about Aim-120C shoot from 60nm ????

 

i wanna know your opinion about Aim-120c energy bleeding near to none and also regaining speed in Climb and in Max trk file look at SD-10 in Climb it lose energy and ofc in falling Part both maintaining the energy according to Gravity Force no Complaining about that

 

 

It's not the right time to draw conclusion today,

but we are sure ED have improved the missile dynamics to a pretty high level of detail, a great step forward for us all.

[foxwxl]

The US claim the AIM-120D has increase range of 50% than AIM-120C7 and reach a range of 160KM, just by improve the missile trajectory and guidance, motor is not changed.

 

We don't need to focus on whether the exact range number is accurate or not, just note that trajectory can greatly increase the missile's range, and "range" is totally NOT just a fixed number on the datasheet.

[Chiron]

Jeff can fly at 41000 ft at Mach 1.1 with AA load if you start higher and descend.

 

With an AA load she gets sufficiently draggy. If you have wing tanks you can pretty much forget exceeding Mach 0.98.

 

As with most aircraft, to BVR successfully you will need to punch any tanks.

 

yup with full loadout my max was angel 47 with mach 0.98

[Chiron]

It's not the right time to draw conclusion today,

but we are sure ED have improved the missile dynamics to a pretty high level of detail, a great step forward for us all.

 

no my friend i am not saying they are wrong i am just asking for explaining that is all

[Chiron]

It's not the right time to draw conclusion today,

but we are sure ED have improved the missile dynamics to a pretty high level of detail, a great step forward for us all.

 

and i would love so much to revise the CCM value cuz i can't believe that SD-10 sensor can spoofed by Chaff easily like that but if this the reality then i am not complaining

[Tiger-II]

yup with full loadout my max was angel 47 with mach 0.98

 

Yes...she doesn't like high altitude in this config. I need afterburner to get up there, so I do that when I'm committing and not a moment sooner.

[Chiron]

Yes...she doesn't like high altitude in this config. I need afterburner to get up there, so I do that when I'm committing and not a moment sooner.

 

the Climb rate is good also sometimes when i am extending in Cold aspect i climb and also in the climb process i can slightly recommit and be in a good alt with not bad speed to climb more

[Tiger-II]

Yes, same here!

 

I think overall she performs very well (and Blue seem to acknowledge this, hence their envied attacks on its capabilities).

 

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Edited June 18, 2020 by Tiger-II

[AeriaGloria]

and i would love so much to revise the CCM value cuz i can't believe that SD-10 sensor can spoofed by Chaff easily like that but if this the reality then i am not complaining

 

It just got increased chaff resistance this last patch. Give it a try

[Chiron]

It just got increased chaff resistance this last patch. Give it a try

 

i will but i mean its 0.8 unless there is another element effect Chaff resistance

 

and sure i will try it

[AeriaGloria]

i will but i mean its 0.8 unless there is another element effect Chaff resistance

 

and sure i will try it

 

It’s .08 now but it used to be .14, that’s probably around 4 degrees, it’s a big difference

[Tiger-II]

I'm not from the missile team but this is my 2 cents assuming the SD-10 quote and Russian diagrams from the internet are all correct:

 

[ATTACH]240232[/ATTACH]

(Correction: Vcarrier max at 10km seems to be 500m/s)

 

[ATTACH]240233[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]240234[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]240235[/ATTACH]

 

 

These are great! Also worth noting that the launch aircraft is LOWER than the aircraft it is attacking (not look-down-shoot-down), so the missile is immediately fighting gravity to get up to the target.

[Max1mus]

I'm not from the missile team but this is my 2 cents assuming the SD-10 quote and Russian diagrams from the internet are all correct:

 

[ATTACH]240232[/ATTACH]

(Correction: Vcarrier max at 10km seems to be 500m/s)

 

[ATTACH]240233[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]240234[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]240235[/ATTACH]

 

Even those charts prove that something isnt right. The possible launch at 12000-13000m is supposed to be <90km based on that graph. In DCS right now its >120km as my track shows.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Max1mus

[LJQCN101]

Depends on traditions, maximum range on those charts could be defined at a certain Pk, or a certain terminal mach number, or a terminal speed equals to the target speed plus a fixed bias, or potential available g. So it won't tell much actually.

 

But it is least possible for the max range to be defined at which the missile is about to fall out of the sky.

[shagrat]

First I need to say I am by no means a BVR or missile specialist, so for me these discussions about changes to certain values is interesting.

With my limited knowledge in BVR I always assumed there are certain "universal" tactics and maneuvers you use to support your missile as best as possible, as well as the same for defending against a BVR attack? Now, from what I learned, you usually get SA first (picture from AWACS, RWR indications), then you try getting a lock on the (highest) threat, try to fire an early shot to force the enemy defensive and your wingman presses on or any other typical tactic to engage in BVR.

This discussion despite the technical details, trackfiles, charts and quotes, looks to me like "mine should be longer than yours, because I want to have the longest" instead of working with what you have and improve your skill and tactics, don't you think?

There is and never was a balance between weapon systems, it is always a leap frogging on both sides to have an advantage, so by definition, there is no such thing as "overpowered", only "different from real life" which usually is hidden from us, by this unfortunate thing called "classified information" so the people who know for sure can't/won't tell and the rest of us can make educated guesses, right? I mean over 60 km could be 61 km or 580 km and anything in-between, an AIM-120 launched from an orbital platform in geosynchronous orbit could easily have a maximum range of thousands of kilometers if the battery holds long enough and I am sure heavy monsoon rains will degrade the "performance" to some extent... from what I understand the new modeling is pretty sophisticated and already very close to what we would expect a missile to behave, taking into account a lot of factors from burn time, weight reduction from fuel, drag/air density, acceleration, guidance etc. which seems to get results matching most of the info available.

So the most important fact we should acknowledge is: we don't know what either range or the performance is in real life, exactly, we are just extrapolating and guessing around from the little info available for the public.

I am as well doubting the fact, that any minor changes to the current parameters will massively influence the tactics employed or the way you would defend a missile... in the end its only about getting more or less range/performance, to give one side an advantage or the other side a disadvantage, so it is easier to win an engagement, no more no less.

Just my 2 cents and not meant to offend someone in particular, just my observations.

[Max1mus]

Depends on traditions, maximum range on those charts could be defined at a certain Pk, or a certain terminal mach number, or a terminal speed equals to the target speed plus a fixed bias, or potential available g. So it won't tell much actually.

 

But it is least possible for the max range to be defined at which the missile is about to fall out of the sky.

 

The translation of that document says "zones of possible launch". So it is the maximum possible distance at which the missile could hit a target. I dont know who shopped the SD10 graph in there, the original document is from a MiG-29 manual and has only the 120B in there.

 

So whoever put that graph in there is implying that the absolute maximum possible launch distance (whether thats due to energy or battery life) at 12000 meters is around 80-90km. While in DCS its 120+km. And all longer than AIM-120C which the SD-10/PL-12 is quoted to not outrange.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Max1mus

[Tiger-II]

I have come armed with an ACMI.

 

Preliminary analysis of the ACMI combined with lack of bias (I want this thing to be accurate - not OP or under-OP) shows that whatever you are talking about "120+km" is absolute nonsense.

 

My first missile shot is against a non-maneuvering AWACS at 74 NM.

 

Remember: it matters not what the missile is - you can shoot anything at any range. It doesn't change whether you are in weapons range or not!

 

So to be clear... I fired at 74 NM.

 

What happened? Look for yourself.

 

The missile battery expired 33 seconds before reaching the target. The missile had tons of energy left (Mach 3.03). It was out of power, and dead.

 

Even better: after firing the missile, the target turned towards, closing the distance.

 

Any other questions?

 

@Max1mus: I enjoy missile discussions as much as anyone, but please, stop with the BS and actually start providing some data we can use. Your post is just ranting that the SD-10 is heading towards properly modelled. Aside from your obvious bias against the JF-17, I really don't see your point.

 

Based on the data and watching the missile speed in the sim, based on a speed of 1800 kts (Mach 3.0-ish) and a battery life of 100 seconds, the missile has a maximum range under ideal conditions of 50 NM or 92.6 km.

 

Note also that I launched below the target altitude (I'm at 33000 ft; the target is at 40000 ft). I pitched up to 15 degrees before lofting the missile at the optimum intercept angle (nose pointing at the dot).

 

70 km (37.796 NM) missile range is based on firing from 10800 ft (20 km) altitude. I'm 3.2x higher than that.

 

In the second sequence, similar set-up: 33000 ft at Mach 0.95. Lofting on optimum intercept. Missile fired at 58.13 NM. Missile goes dead 11 seconds before reaching the target, and misses by 0.74 NM.

 

These are ALL NON-MANEUVERING TARGETS.

Tacview-20200618-113750-DCS-JF-17 - Caucus - Kobuleti - Ramp - Training - MP.txt.zip

Edited June 18, 2020 by Tiger-II

[Tiger-II]

I haven't finished yet... next sequence is at 10800 ft.

[Tiger-II]

Target is beaming. I'm at 11000 ft, target is at 40000 ft.

 

In the second sequence, the first missile is fired at 26.88 NM (49.78 km). The second missile is fired at 18.0 NM (33.3 km).

 

This is "miles" (pun absolutely intended :D ) away from 70 km, even working on the assumption of launching at 20 km altitude as per the charts.

 

I'm slightly higher, faster, and pointing at optimum intercept.

 

For each shot I pitched up and aimed at the dot, at in excess of Mach 0.95.

 

Enjoy. ;)

Tacview-20200618-134823-DCS.txt.zip