Super 530D could need a perormance update!

[Thinder]

>>>

 

 

 

There has been a terrific job done for the Mirage 2000 and it's weaponry so far but I know for a fact that the firing envelop and performances of the simulated Super 530D are closer to that of the F than the real thing.

 

 

Here are the reasons:

 

1) I served and handled weapons in AdlA and I know for a fact that all-public data are always "bunkered" in comparison to those available in Squadrons.

 

Some data were even classified AFTER service entry under supervision of DGA and Armed Forces Ministry (more severely so now), documents available then are no longer available after service entry, some made available to potential customer at Airshows are later deleted from public domain if they were leaked.

 

If the weaponry is still in service in any Air Force (as is the case for the Mirage III), all data remains classified as I did find out when I published the firing envelop for Mirage III/AIM-9 in an enthusiast website, the image was promptly taken out off the web, probably on the demands of the Pakistan Ministry of Defense.

 

In the case of the Super 530 serie, we have two different AAMs, both in weight, dimension and performances and as expected, the data for the D are still classified.

 

At the time MATRA were still advertising the 530 F, they disclosed this document.

 

 

The source (an active weapon specialist with AdlA) insisted that those data provided by MATRA were that of the F variant, and that there is no all-public data available for the D variant.

 

That's more or less the performances that we can expect from the actual Super 530D as we use it in the game, without the shot-down capabilities.

 

As I was alarmed by this, I tried to get some more information available to everyone (and not hearsay or even information from active members of AdlA), I bumped into this document:

 

The Super 530 D is the version adapted to the Mirage 2000 equipped with an on-board pulse doppler radar (called RDI, pulse doppler radar). The main differences in characteristics compared to the F are as follows:

 

- semi-active EMD doppler seeker (see chapter 8, EMD), with digital technology from 1980 (microprocessor for management); significantly increased DA range: 50 km; very high resistance to modern countermeasures;

 

- partially digitized computer pilot;

 

- more efficient vehicle: increased mass and length (+ 30 kg and + 265 mm), total impulse thruster 16% higher, with a composite SEP casing;

 

- performance: maximum speed of Mach 5; Possible height difference increased, allowing attack of targets at 24,000 m; minimum target altitude of 60 m; Maximum firing distance of 50 km, with an intercept distance of 35 km.

http://marc.mistral.free.fr/aventure/militaire/missiles%20tactiques/mt%2059%2079/mt%20ch%2009.htm

Looking at his website, I can guaranty you that this person is very well informed, most of his sources are DGA archives and most probably in some case, documents obtained from members of the Centre des hautes études de l'armement.

 

Centre des hautes études de l'armement. Département d'histoire de l'armement. Comité pour l'histoire de l'aéronautique. Paris

COMAERO

https://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb42381212q

 

Otherwise said an Official website for archive on the subject of French weaponry, the document needed for this article are not all-public.

 

 

>>>>>>

 

 

Later in this document we can read:

 

For the interceptor missile, the Sparrow was superior, until 1987, to the Super 530 F for attacking targets at low altitude; but it was less reliable. After 1987, the two Super 530 D and Sparrow 9 M missiles had equivalent performance.

I'm not sure that the denomination 9 M means, I think it's a typo most likely, but we can't have much doubts about the M variant, here is why:

 

 

1) The AIM-7P is an improved AIM-7M, and AIM-7P missiles are built since 1987 by new production as well as conversion of existing AIM-7Ms.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html

The author provides the date 1987 and type M as clues, Matra Super 530D service entry date is 1988.

 

2) It is very unlikely that an Super 530 D would reach the 70 km range claimed for an AIM-7 M, but this range is the Max Aero range, at which the AAM no longer have sufficient energy to hit as maneuvering target.

French AAM manufacturers doesn't provide this range, mostly because the AAM have auto-destruct timers in the event they miss the target as is the case for the Super 530F/D.

This is the reasons why the author can claim that the AIM-7 M and Matra Super 530D were roughly equivalent in performances.

 

3) The 50 km Maximum firing range seems realistic in view of the 0.5 Mach velocity advantage for the F (40 km/30.000 ft vertical separation) and full 1.0 Mach for the D

Maximum firing range is the range at which the AAM can be fired.

 

 

 

So, OK, we now have (yet another) potential debate on the subject so I want to put a disclaimer so as to avoid unnecessary critics:

 

.This is not a dumb critic of the job already done by developers, having worked in the industry as a 3D artist, I can tell the high level of quality of the product they provided us for the price they asked for. Thumbs up!

 

.My goal is to try to contribute as much as I can to possible updates, I have plans to achieve that in the near future.

 

.Since we're not likely to see a Mk2/-5F variant with MICA AAMs, it is kind of justified to expect Mirage 2000C weaponry updated so as to minimize the gap existing between it and the competition.

 

.An updated Super 530D would help actual Mirage 2000C players in PvP.

 

 

Having said that, I'll let you to your opinions and comments, have a good time flying the Mirage!

 

 

......

Edited August 30, 2020 by Thinder

[kotor633]

You have really done your work and what you post here is also informative. And of course, it would be very desirable. But, I think that Razbam shouldn't care. If you followed their previous, what should I call it, 'business conduct'. And in my opinion, they would have better things to do first, namely to bring their previous 3 modules to a decent, rock-solid state (which they actually planned for 2020). After that, such a change would be desirable for the Super 530D.

[Thinder]

You have really done your work and what you post here is also informative. And of course, it would be very desirable. But, I think that Razbam shouldn't care. If you followed their previous, what should I call it, 'business conduct'. And in my opinion, they would have better things to do first, namely to bring their previous 3 modules to a decent, rock-solid state (which they actually planned for 2020). After that, such a change would be desirable for the Super 530D.

 

 

Agreed.

 

In the pipeline though, modelling of the real dimension Super-530D from blueprints of the wind tunnel model and digital wind tunneling with accurate fluid simulation package from Dassault-Systemes.

 

All what's missing is the budget for a decent graphic tablet, and the time, research work is only the first part of the job, it should help them a little...

 

 

 

 

......

[TLTeo]

Pretty sure ED is going to take over doing all the weapons, so you're better off asking them over RB.

[ZHeN]

I've read the post two times thoroughly

 

still can't figure out what exactly you want to buff

[Fri13]

I've read the post two times thoroughly

 

still can't figure out what exactly you want to buff

 

Likely the range up to 50 km in Head-On even at 10 km altitude separation (up to 24 km) for target?

(this as F is publicly stated to have 40 km Head-On at similar situation)

[ZHeN]

sigh...

got bored, just did a 46.20nm kill with a 530

 

impact @ M3.5

 

range was limited by RDI ability to STT

 

which is 85km

[Ramsay]

Having said that, I'll let you to your opinions and comments, have a good time flying the Mirage!

 

I don't see any information on the speed of the launch platform or the approaching target, so how can we tell if the DCS 530D is under or over performing ?

 

For example there are SAC charts for the AIM-7F showing an air aero = 53 NMI at Mach 2.2 @ 40,000ft vs a Mach 3.0 target at 90,000 ft.

 

In the AdA chart you quote, a 530F launched from 21 NMI (40 km) and 49,000 ft can hit an approaching target at 79,000 ft, but without knowing the speed of the launching/target aircraft, we can't say if the DCS 530D performance is comparable.

[myHelljumper]

To quote an older post analyzing a missile performance test :

 

M2000 : 45 kft - 1.37Mach

F-15C : 45 kft - 1.28Mach

 

Missile : ToF 45 sec, Max speed 4.25Mach, impact speed 2.43Mach

 

The 2 aircraft where flying strait head on with no maneuver from the targeted aircraft.

 

Range : 31.4 nm/58.2 km

 

What is incorrect here ?

[Thinder]

Likely the range up to 50 km in Head-On even at 10 km altitude separation (up to 24 km) for target?

(this as F is publicly stated to have 40 km Head-On at similar situation)

 

 

Head-on yes but with 30.000ft vertical separation.

 

 

This is something which is not really taken in consideration when it comes to comparison, for example, if you compare to an R-27R, you'll realize that 70 Max range is Max Aero range, and that its Max Effective range is given head-on at target altitude.

 

In the case of the super-530D, energy level is higher overall, Max Mach is higher (by 0.5 and 1.0 Mach F/R-27R), possible vertical separation with target is higher than that of the F...

 

(this as F is publicly stated to have 40 km Head-On at similar situation)

 

Fired from 52.500ft with vertical target separation of 30.000ft possible, while in the data I provided fist, there is no mention of what those 24.000m/78.7400ft since we have no launch altitude, on the MATRA document scale it's <> 25.000m/82.000ft intercept altitude.

 

I've read the post two times thoroughly

 

still can't figure out what exactly you want to buff

 

 

Max firing range would be a good start, but it is not the only thing that could be buffed on the simulated model since its possible maximum vertical separation to target is also superior.......

 

I don't see any information on the speed of the launch platform or the approaching target, so how can we tell if the DCS 530D is under or over performing ?

 

For example there are SAC charts for the AIM-7F showing an air aero = 53 NMI at Mach 2.2 @ 40,000ft vs a Mach 3.0 target at 90,000 ft.

 

In the AdA chart you quote, a 530F launched from 21 NMI (40 km) and 49,000 ft can hit an approaching target at 79,000 ft, but without knowing the speed of the launching/target aircraft, we can't say if the DCS 530D performance is comparable.

 

I don't see where this is relevant once you know that the D have a higher energy level, 0,5 Mach higher speed, wider engagement envelop with Possible height difference increased, plus a look at the interception profile, from take off to 16.000m/52.500ft suggest that the aircraft is subsonic/transonic anyway.

 

Dassault-Aviation give the Mirage Maximum Climb rate for 60.000ft/mn, but this is on light combat configuration with an aircraft already in the air.

 

In the MATRA scenario, the Aircraft is likely to have at least 50% internal fuel and go from ground level to 52.500ft, intercept time includes AAM flight time, so I think it is very unlikely that the A-C will have time to level-up at 52.500ft to pick up speed and go supersonic to achieve take off, climb to altitude and a kill in 5mn.

 

 

Mirage 2000C specialist here can try if they want...

 

 

To quote an older post analyzing a missile performance test :

 

 

 

What is incorrect here ?

 

 

In the case of the D:

 

 

Missing: Shooter to target vertical separation. ???

 

Incorrect: Maximum range given is Max Aero in the case of the F before self-destruct at 45 km, completely different from a Maximum firing range of 50km, which implies a possibility of a kill although out of NEZ, there is a good reason for the self-destruct, the AAM is no longer in an energy state where it can achieve a kill on a maneuvering target.

 

Incorrect: Max Mach if the AAM have been fired level to target especially at those Mach.

 

In optimum condition; level to target at 40 kft - 2.23Mach, you should be able to launch a D at 50km and see it reach its Max Mach as well...

 

 

.....

Edited August 31, 2020 by Thinder

[Ramsay]

Mirage 2000C specialist here can try if they want...

 

If you test in game, you will see that the current limitation is the 45 second battery life/self-destruct i.e. I can easily lock and shoot at a Tu-160 (@M1.2) from 65 km but 45 sec later, with the 530D still travelling at M2.2, it will self-destruct (17 km short of the target).

 

Currently 45 sec gives the 530D ~ 46 km (25 NMI) range against a non-manoeuvring target @ 45,000 ft.

 

It's already been asked if the 45 second limit is correct and IIRC feedback from the dev's is that, it is.

 

With the Mirage M1.03 @ 43,000 ft, the 530D reaches M3.9, am I right in thinking you are asking for the 530D to reach M5.0 ?

[ZHeN]

Max firing range would be a good start

85km isn't enough for you ? you want more ?

[Thinder]

If you test in game, you will see that the current limitation is the 45 second battery life/self-destruct i.e. I can easily lock and shoot at a Tu-160 (@M1.2) from 65 km but 45 sec later, with the 530D still travelling at M2.2, it will self-destruct (17 km short of the target).

 

Currently 45 sec gives the 530D ~ 46 km (25 NMI) range against a non-manoeuvring target @ 45,000 ft.

 

It's already been asked if the 45 second limit is correct and IIRC feedback from the dev's is that, it is.

 

With the Mirage M1.03 @ 43,000 ft, the 530D reaches M3.9, am I right in thinking you are asking for the 530D to reach M5.0 ?

 

 

You still don't comprehend the concept of Max Firing range and Max Aero range, which is the reason for the auto-destruct timer to be present in the first place, so Max Aero range you provide is 48km.

 

The Super-530D was not designed to hit non maneuverig Bombers but Mig-25 with some maneuvering capabilities even at M 2.5.

 

The range given by French AAM manufacturers is NEVER the Max Aero, it is the case for US and Russian AAMs, not the French, the 40km given by MATRA for the F, and successfully tested, is Max Effective range, the targets were M2.5 capable US-purchased AQM 37, they bought 50 of them and tested them at up to 72.170ft for both variants.

 

So Effective range IS 40km in case of the F, and not a Max Aero of 45 or 48km in the case of the D, and since it correspond to the Maximum Firing Range in optimum conditions, in the case of the D, it should be 50 km, not 40, I watched Jojo tests and he never was able to fire further than 38km with a limit of 40km, I checked during a training mission and I'm pretty sure it is the maxi in my case too.

 

I never saw the Maximum Range for the 530 go over 40. km, it's quiet easy to figure out with the scale giving you all data, and passed this Maxi, the AAM should be firing.

 

 

 

As for Max Mach in optimum condition, yes it should be Mach 5.0, as I quoted some of the test results, at this sort of firing speed, (40.000 ft - 2.23Mach), you should be able to launch a D at 50km and see it reach its Max Mach of 5.0 as well, do you think those figures were disclosed out of thin air?...

 

At Mach 2.2 the AAM is out of energy to even consider hitting a target pulling 5.0G at high speed, a Mig-25 is known for having pulled more than 10.0 even so it was by accident this is what Max Aero range means.

 

Seriously If I need information about the performances of those AAMs, I'm not going to ask a game developer, no disrespect to them, I have some good sources among which some people who have worked on them and they are adamant that the game Super-530D performances are mostly that of the F. It's enough for me.

 

 

85km isn't enough for you ? you want more ?

 

 

And where do you get this figure from?

 

 

......

Edited August 31, 2020 by Thinder

[DarksydeRob]

Not really sure what you mean by max firing range.

 

The biggest limitation of the missile now its going to be the fact that its using the old missile API .With the New API it would be buffed across the board. Being able to do everything better even if it has a slower top speed . Just like we have seen with the Updated Sparrow and AMRAAM. Especially the Sparrow , its seen a massive range increase with the addition of the loft and new API.

 

ED has taken control of missiles so we should see a updated 530 in the future( be it , it wont be high on the priority I reckon) even if RAZBAM wasn't planning on it. But still don't expect it to level the playing field in scenarios with Fox 3s in a head on fight.

 

I'm not an expert on the 530 D , is there any info on if it lofts IRL ?

[Thinder]

Not really sure what you mean by max firing range.

 

The biggest limitation of the missile now its going to be the fact that its using the old missile API .With the New API it would be buffed across the board. Being able to do everything better even if it has a slower top speed . Just like we have seen with the Updated Sparrow and AMRAAM. Especially the Sparrow , its seen a massive range increase with the addition of the loft and new API.

 

ED has taken control of missiles so we should see a updated 530 in the future( be it , it wont be high on the priority I reckon) even if RAZBAM wasn't planning on it. But still don't expect it to level the playing field in scenarios with Fox 3s in a head on fight.

 

I'm not an expert on the 530 D , is there any info on if it lofts IRL ?

 

 

Maximum firing range is the range at which the AAM can be fired the system will let you since launch is within parameters, it will hit the target before getting into Maximum Aero range, it is basically the same as Max Effective range, only of it, the AAM shouldn't fire..

 

Maximum Aero range is the range at which the AAM no longer has the energy necessary for hitting a maneuvering target.

 

In decreasing order of probability of hit, this gives you Max Aero which is close to zero, Max firing or Effective range, NEZ, Minimum firing range where the AAM will have no time to arm or its seekers to be effective.

 

I'm obviously not looking for parity with AIM-120 passed the M model, and in any case, the Super-530 D will never have the Max Aero range of US or Russian AAMs since it will auto-destuct before.

 

They were not designed with the same firing envelop in mind, in the case of the Mirage and Super-530F/D, high acceleration, Max Mach and vertical separation with the target were the priorities.

 

Just a look at a map comparing the 3 countries should give you a clue, a Mirage 2000C would never be able to climb to target altitude from Alert V take off before its intended target was out of range if it was flying at 82,999ft/M2.5.

 

So the AAM was designed to allow for the difference and an interception profile of <> 5mn in duration, with 30.000ft vertical separation in the case of the F.

 

For additional info see the first post.

 

http://marc.mistral.free.fr/aventure/militaire/missiles%20tactiques/mt%2059%2079/mt%20ch%2009.htm

 

 

for all the US acronym about range, you can base yourselves on this doc from Jane's simulation F/A- 18 I'm pretty sure it is accurate.

 

 

 

......

Edited August 31, 2020 by Thinder

[ZHeN]

And where do you get this figure from?

 

 

......

 

so you're a writter, not a reader I see...

 

sigh...

 

 

which is 85km

[GGTharos]

Maximum firing range is the range at which the AAM can be fired the system will let you since launch is within parameters, it will hit the target before getting into Maximum Aero range, it is basically the same as Max Effective range, only of it, the AAM shouldn't fire..

 

Ok, let's go over this a bit. Max effective range means whatever they want it to mean. What is it? Mach 1? 2? 0.5? The ability to pull 5g for 2 seconds?

 

Maximum Aero range is the range at which the AAM no longer has the energy necessary for hitting a maneuvering target.

 

No, it's the range at which the miss distance will exceed a certain amount, which can be translated to either a speed, maneuver capability, or whatever else the definition is, with the stipulation that the target is NOT maneuvering, or is permitted a jink or something of the sort. If you don't know the exact definition you don't know what the Raero really represents. Having said that, a CFD would make this moot and the Raero could be defined by ED or the player (as in, the missile does what it does but you decide what parameters define Raero for you). In this case it would be nice to have a player-configurable DLZ for those aircraft that could reasonably provide such a feature.

 

They were not designed with the same firing envelop in mind, in the case of the Mirage and Super-530F/D, high acceleration, Max Mach and vertical separation with the target were the priorities.

 

This is fairly common criteria for most AAMs of that time actually. The specifics for the operational design are not known to us, but we know it's designed to hit other planes.

 

Just a look at a map comparing the 3 countries should give you a clue, a Mirage 2000C would never be able to climb to target altitude from Alert V take off before its intended target was out of range if it was flying at 82,999ft/M2.5.

 

... and unless you get the intercept just right, the 530 won't do much better than other missiles at hitting the target. With an HFF target your margins are very poor. The 530 will probably have better margins than certain other missiles, but not by much - it's already terribly constrained by the target parameters. This is true of basically all missiles. (That's not to say that you can't do it better with a 530D in certain scenarios, only that an HFF already constrains the attack footprint very significantly)

 

So the AAM was designed to allow for the difference and an interception profile of <> 5mn in duration, with 30.000ft vertical separation in the case of the F.

 

Very similar stipulations exist for the AIM-7F, a missile that flies quite a bit different.

 

Anyway, to model the missile correctly a CFD is needed (but that doesn't mean you can't make good guesses) for the drag and lift. Certainly there's a good change that that lift should be corrected - this is what causes the missile not to turn well at any altitude, but is especially obvious at high altitudes. This sort of correction was made now to the R-27 family, and the high lift is a component of the CFD'd 120s and 7s.

 

Maybe this will resolve any perceived or real problems at this time.

 

Finally, we don't really know much about the rocket motor configuration, so all of this 'high acceleration', '+16% impulse' doesn't mean much other than in comparison to the F. If you don't know what the F is doing, then you won't know quite so much about the D, either.

And since this is a boost-sustain configuration, it's even harder ... even though you could make some reasonable assumptions, like a 70/30 grain split by mass - but then we don't really know the mass. We can heap another reasonable assumption here, of course - and, basically, all of those things have been done at this point. It doesn't mean you can't got over them again, but saying 'this information is for the 530F' and 'the 530D should be better' doesn't provide anything useful in practice for simulating the missile.

 

You don't know what information was provided and what was assumed or calculated and I'm fairly certain that it wasn't for the 530F. The people who did work on the missile had a pretty good clue with regard to modelling this.

 

So there are a couple of things you might want to look into:

 

1) Show evidence that the current 530 represents an F. This has to be solid evidence, not 'but it was designed for ... ' etc. Hearsay from technicians means nothing without solid numbers, either.

2) Show evidence of the 530Ds characteristics. You won't be able to because they're classified, ok - so the do the exercise of estimating the parameters youself. Drag and lift profiles and rocket motor details. Mentions of ranges and top speeds, as you probably guessed, are not very useful.

Edited September 1, 2020 by GGTharos

[Ramsay]

You still don't comprehend the concept of Max Firing range and Max Aero range, which is the reason for the auto-destruct timer to be present in the first place, so Max Aero range you provide is 48km.

 

48km is not Max Aero (it is still at M2.2 and has lots of energy), it is the range the 45 sec timer self-destructs the missile.

[Thinder]

 

So there are a couple of things you might want to look into:

 

1) Show evidence that the current 530 represents an F. This has to be solid evidence, not 'but it was designed for ... ' etc. Hearsay from technicians means nothing without solid numbers, either.

2) Show evidence of the 530Ds characteristics. You won't be able to because they're classified, ok - so the do the exercise of estimating the parameters youself. Drag and lift profiles and rocket motor details. Mentions of ranges and top speeds, as you probably guessed, are not very useful.

 

Already done in my first post in both case.

 

Now my turn, had you bothered reading the first post you wouldn't have felt the need to write so much to say so little, especially with unknown, and I meant unknown to you, because the difference here is that I served in my country's Air Force and serviced weapons which were fitted to our Aircraft, had you done the same for yours, we wouldn't have this conversation in the first place.

 

You would know what the requirements were for all of those AAM even before they entered service, you would know what the role of the platform were, you would know their geographic and aerodynamic limitations, all of which leads to different required specification as I mentioned.

 

As for squadron noises, you obviously aren't very well informed on the DGA rules for classified material, first I didn't ask for more details than I was given, question of training, second even if I knew, I wouldn't provide anyone else with them when there is a classification still applied that I know of.

 

Mention of range and speed give a very good idea of an AAM flight profile, especially when given with details such as:

 

.Launch altitude and time from take off to AAM hitting the target.

 

.Maximum possible vertical separation in the case of the MATRA documentation on the F which mentions the difference in speed and altitude been bridge by the AAM.

 

In short, if you know platform and AAM you can figure out what does what, you obviously don't, there are different requirements for level flight interception and high levels of vertical separation between platform and target and it affects their design:

 

In the case of the MATRA Super 530F/D it starts at design stage with what many experts qualified as "exceptional aerodynamic charateristics".

 

I could give you a crash course on the merits or the short wingspan/long chord design for high speed/high altitude intercept scenarios but I'm not sure you already grab the difference between the Russian/US AAMs and the MATRA design.

 

 

A trend was started in France in case of the first (bombers interception) and involved high intercept altitudes and speeds for the platform coupled with a specific AAM:

 

Mirage III/SEPR 841 coupled with MATRA R-530, with high altitude bombers as envisaged targets.

 

Mig-25 coupled with R-40, with high altitude bombers as envisaged targets.

 

AIM-7 coupled to F-15, with high altitude bombers as envisaged targets.

 

So it is obvious that those AAMs were never designed with the same flight/engagement profile than the R5230 F/D which envisaged target was the Mig-25.

 

Their max performances doesn't involve a requirement for such a high degree of vertical separation for a given Maximum Effective range as is the case for the MATRA AAM, instead the platform was required to be able to get or get close to level to target, as a result, they shared multiple speed and altitude records.

 

Now, if you have issue with those realities, I strongly suggest you start with buying an Oxford and open the page at the word Effective.

 

Then you can go on and take on some geography courses and let us know how you plan to get a Mirage 2000C standing on alert 5 at BA-102 Dijon to get to level altitude with a Mig-25 flying at M 2.5/67.000 ft, crossing the East German border from around Suhl in just above 3mn.

 

For your info, BA-102 was the home of the sole 2 French Air Force dedicated Air Defense Squadrons, equipped with Mirage 2000-5F today after decades on Mirage 2000C, and happen to be the AFB where I was based with GERMAS. The last 3 letters of this acronym means Specialized Air Material.

 

Here are two a little pictures for your collection.

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by Thinder

[Thinder]

(it is still at M2.2 and has lots of energy),

 

No it doesn't, for hitting a target, your AAM will need to be able to pull 4 to 5 times the amount of G of a maneuvering target, from less than 50% of its highest level of energy and increasing AoA just to stay level flight.

 

That's the reason behind the conception of the 50G capable generation of AAMs, and those 50G can only be reached under the highest level of thrust of their propellant.

 

Once in free flight, they don't have it anymore, so depending on their aerodynamic characteristics, altitude and speed, they will have a rapidly decreasing level of energy and probability of a hit will decrease as rapidly.

 

Below 50% of their pick energy level, they are basically ballistic.

 

 

 

......

Edited September 1, 2020 by Thinder

[GGTharos]

Already done in my first post in both case.

 

I guess I missed the drag/lift/thrust curve in your post. Cool patches though.

[Thinder]

I guess I missed the drag/lift/thrust curve in your post. Cool patches though.

 

 

You missed a lot more than that.

 

Starting with a 0.5 Mach higher speed for the F, a full 1.0 Mach for the D over AIM-7 M and 30.000 ft vertical separation, also increased from the F to the D.

 

Let us know when you figured what it takes to achieve that.

 

 

......

[GGTharos]

You missed a lot more than that.

 

Starting with a 0.5 Mach higher speed for the F, a full 1.0 Mach for the D over AIM-7 M and 30.000 ft vertical separation, also increased from the F to the D.

 

Let is know when you figured what it takes to achieve that.

 

 

......

 

 

Means exactly nothing other than to say the rocket motor has different configuration. Yep, the 7M is slower, but it does the 30000' vertical separation thing too, it's in the 7F specs.

 

Where's the drag/lift/thrust curve?

[ZHeN]

[GGTharos]

More pop-corn, more!