LD-10 now useless, bug or feature ?

[ShadowFrost]

6 hours ago, dock999 said:

 

Instead of requesting tracks if you are a real tester , you even can try the instant mission  SEAD under JF 17.   what I have been experiencing is  LD 10 with SP mode hit nothing even those sams sides have fired you a missile.  LD-10 should have hit those SAMs when they are tracking you.  Please do not advise " LD -10 is a short range  missile"   There is a difference between now and then in term of LD 10. LD -10 chosen in PAS mode works  better.

 

Its very important to have data (tracks) because if you say you miss and I say I hit there are many, many parameters that go into why one launch was successful and why one was not. How do I know you actually have a problem instead of firing outside of useful range? Or maybe an issue exists but it only shows itself when firing from a extremely slow or fast airspeed. I cannot test for all possible variables therefore a track is extremely valuable to confirm that the particular issue you are seeing is addressed. 

I have mentioned possible areas of improvement in regards to the current guidance that could be causing issues (besides kinetic performance, I can make no comments to the kinetic performance as I do not have the data) that can possibly be optimized. Past that, without additional data showing areas of concern I can not make anymore conclusions. 
 

As discussed above, failing to effectively guide and hit the target from a low angle has been noted. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by ShadowFrost

[dock999]

43 minutes ago, ShadowFrost said:

Its very important to have data (tracks) because if you say you miss and I say I hit there are many, many parameters that go into why one launch was successful and why one was not. How do I know you actually have a problem instead of firing outside of useful range? Or maybe an issue exists but it only shows itself when firing from a extremely slow or fast airspeed. I cannot test for all possible variables therefore a track is extremely valuable to confirm that the particular issue you are seeing is addressed. 

I have mentioned possible areas of improvement in regards to the current guidance that could be causing issues (besides kinetic performance, I can make no comments to the kinetic performance as I do not have the data) that can possibly be optimized. Past that, without additional data showing areas of concern I can not make anymore conclusions. 
 

As discussed above, failing to effectively guide and hit the target from a low angle has been noted. 

 

 

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

Do you understand the language?

Edited July 7, 2022 by dock999

[JG54_NF2]

2小时前，dock999说：

 

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

Do you understand the language?

 

Hi

I tested according to the environment in trk. 

By comparing agm88 (LD10 adopts the same ballistic characteristics), both of them have the same problem (lack of height caused by approaching the target leveling), but agm88 has a longer power time, so it has a further hit than LD10 at low altitude. I don't think this is a bug, but a feature of aerodynamics itself (low altitude resistance). If the launch angle (Loft) is controlled manually during launch, this situation will be significantly improved.

You can see the screenshot below.

[ShadowFrost]

2 hours ago, dock999 said:

 

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

Do you understand the language?

 

Unfortunately, I still do not understand what you are getting at. 

Not once do I mention the kinetic performance of current vs past as I have no data to make an argument from. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by ShadowFrost

[AeriaGloria]

12 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Seems like most info on LD-10 and CM-102 comes from different Arms Shows trying to get them marketed, sold and exported. Same with the Norinco GB-6.
I love them as an addition on the DCS: JF-17  

But out of curiosity. Are these weapons in operational use in real life?

Yes, Pakistan purchased 100 LD-10 a few years ago. I do not know if they have purchased more since. I am not aware of Pakistan purchasing GB-6 as they have their own indigenous glide munitions, but i believe GB-6 is in active service with PLAAF

[dock999]

5 hours ago, JG54_NF2 said:

Hi

I tested according to the environment in trk. 

By comparing agm88 (LD10 adopts the same ballistic characteristics), both of them have the same problem (lack of height caused by approaching the target leveling), but agm88 has a longer power time, so it has a further hit than LD10 at low altitude. I don't think this is a bug, but a feature of aerodynamics itself (low altitude resistance). If the launch angle (Loft) is controlled manually during launch, this situation will be significantly improved.

You can see the screenshot below.

If this is " a feature of aerodynamics "  why there is a difference   between PAS mode and SP mode when LD 10 is used? they all passively track radar wave , right?

Currently PAS mode still able to hit about 50% of the targets whereas SP mode hit all most Zero target.

Do you think this is a aerodynamic problem?

I tell you those missiles all were fired at the same altitude, same speed and the same attitude  .

The problem is the situation was not like that before .  It is a new problem generated by updating .

[sylkhan]

On 7/7/2022 at 2:37 PM, dock999 said:

..

Currently PAS mode still able to hit about 50% of the targets whereas SP mode hit all most Zero target.

...

I confirm

[ShadowFrost]

On 7/7/2022 at 8:37 AM, dock999 said:

If this is " a feature of aerodynamics "  why there is a difference   between PAS mode and SP mode when LD 10 is used? they all passively track radar wave , right?

Currently PAS mode still able to hit about 50% of the targets whereas SP mode hit all most Zero target.

Do you think this is a aerodynamic problem?

I tell you those missiles all were fired at the same altitude, same speed and the same attitude  .

The problem is the situation was not like that before .  It is a new problem generated by updating .

It is not an aerodynamic problem. 

Guidance showed that the LD10 had a issue in terms of control authority at slower speeds with low angles of approach. SP likely encountered this more often than PAS mode due to it taking a direct line to target where as PAS (depending on the distance) could take several seconds before beginning its descent towards target due to later target aquisition. 

 

If you see anything other than the above example of low speed & low angle misses, additional data would be nice in ensuring there aren't separate issues at play. 

Edited July 10, 2022 by ShadowFrost

[AeriaGloria]

This has to be why LD-10 has 10-15% worse performance then SD-10. SD-10 has nozzle exit area value of .0250, and LD-10 has a value of .013268! 
 

This means that when motor is on, the LD-10 has more drag (becuase it’s rocket exhaust is not streamlining the missile as much)

Discovered on a weapon bug forum post that was also partly sent here as SD-10 nozzle exit area bug report. 

This has to be the reason it has less performance. And if this nozzle exit value is closer to correct, perhaps something else in SD-10 needs changing to account for this? Unless the SD-10 slightly over performs. Who knows, but wanted to bring this to attention as it’s the obvious culprit 
 

Edited August 18, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[Sanidine]

6 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

This has to be why LD-10 has 10-15% worse performance then SD-10. SD-10 has nozzle exit area value of .0250, and LD-10 has a value of .013268! 
 

This means that when motor is on, the LD-10 has more drag (becuase it’s rocket exhaust is not streamlining the missile as much)

Discovered on a weapon bug forum post that was also partly sent here as SD-10 nozzle exit area bug report. 

This has to be the reason it has less performance. And if this nozzle exit value is closer to correct, perhaps something else in SD-10 needs changing to account for this? Unless the SD-10 slightly over performs. Who knows, but wanted to bring this to attention as it’s the obvious culprit 
 

 

So I guess we have our answer now. The SD-10 will be receiving a nerf to nozzle exit area to match the LD-10

[DSplayer]

3 hours ago, Sanidine said:

So I guess we have our answer now. The SD-10 will be receiving a nerf to nozzle exit area to match the LD-10

Not exactly. There are several other differences relating to the LD-10 when compared to the SD-10 that do effect its performance (if you disregard the nozzle_exit_area value changes). One of them that will probably be fixed soon is that the boost stage for the LD-10 doesn't currently have a nozzle_exit_area value but there is one for the march stage.
 

The controller:

The LD-10 currently has a missile motor controller that is drastically different than the SD-10's:

LD-10 Controller:

Spoiler

 

SD-10 Controller:

Spoiler

 

This causes the missiles to perform extremely different when dealing with when to fire certain stages of the motor. This causes the LD-10 to have an higher peak speed while having a lower average speed. I found this out by conducting a test where the SD-10 was fired using the LD-10's controller values (and both versions using newly planned nozzle). This was the results.

 

Charts (Google Sheets Link Included):

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

You can see the different stages with the stockish SD-10 but you cannot when you look at the SD-10 that has the LD-10 controller.

 

Next up the FM:

Currently the SD-10's FM is a bit different than the LD-10's FM. How much of it's down to the APIs between the newer A2A missiles and A2G missiles being different is unknown to me but there is a difference. Link to DiffChecker for the FM between the LD-10 and SD-10.

 

In summary the LD-10 has a 1 for its tail_first value while the SD-10 has a 0 for its tail_first value. The LD-10 also has a lot more simplified Myw, Mzw, A1trim, and A2trim sections. All I know is that if you were to put these values directly into the SD-10, the SD-10 wouldn't work correctly.

 

Hope these hints should help towards bug fixing the LD-10 and make it comparable to the SD-10 in terms of ballistic performance.

EDIT:
Here's a straight line test for the LD-10 but only the controller and nozzle_exit_area are different. Diffchecker between stock and my modded LD-10.

Charts:

Spoiler

 

I also noticed that the LD-10 suffers from severe oscillations, especially at lower altitudes. This could effect the missile's kinetic energy. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by DSplayer

[ShadowFrost]

On 8/19/2022 at 2:42 AM, DSplayer said:

 

I also noticed that the LD-10 suffers from severe oscillations, especially at lower altitudes. This could effect the missile's kinetic energy. 

 

Under what conditions does it encounter the oscillations? 
We had seen this in testing and had believed it to be fixed. 

[DSplayer]

46 minutes ago, ShadowFrost said:

Under what conditions does it encounter the oscillations? 
We had seen this in testing and had believed it to be fixed. 

IIRC, the oscillations seemed to only happen with the missile that I fired at 500m and, at least in the 3rd person, appeared to be severe. They appeared when the missile started to decrease in speed after its peak Mach speed and lasted only about 1 second.

 

Also the LD-10 still features the weird motor controller which makes it have a higher peak speed but a lower average speed when compared to the SD-10.

 

Here are some tacviews that show the oscillations to a degree from tests in August. I haven't reconducted tests on the most recent patch though.

LD-10 Different Controller and NozzleExitArea.acmiLD-10.acmi

 

EDIT: I redid a test with no modified LUAs and this what I have. It seems to still have the weird oscillations:
Tacview-20220904-221258-DCS-WhitepaperTestLD10.trk.zip.acmi

Edited September 5, 2022 by DSplayer

[ShadowFrost]

Appreciate it, what changed between the first two and the last shot? As the oscillation only appears in the last shot as far as I can tell. Which mode did you fire in? 

 

Thanks 

[DSplayer]

5 minutes ago, ShadowFrost said:

Appreciate it, what changed between the first two and the last shot? As the oscillation only appears in the last shot as far as I can tell. Which mode did you fire in? 

 

Thanks 

In first and last shot you mean the 3 missiles that I fired in each Tacview, they were fired at 12km, 6km, and 500m altitudes respectively since this was initially a test on motor speed. If you're referring to the 3 different tacviews, the things that are changed from each tacview to the next were a different controller and nozzle_exit_area (at the time this wasn't changed yet), this was the stock missile at the time (18th of August), and this was one I conducted today using the same track.

 

The mode that the LD-10 was fired in was PAS at a waypoint that was directly ahead and at the same altitude.

[ShadowFrost]

Just now, DSplayer said:

In first and last shot you mean the 3 missiles that I fired in each Tacview, they were fired at 12km, 6km, and 500m altitudes respectively since this was initially a test on motor speed. If you're referring to the 3 different tacviews, the things that are changed from each tacview to the next were a different controller and nozzle_exit_area (at the time this wasn't changed yet), this was the stock missile at the time (18th of August), and this was one I conducted today using the same track.

 

The mode that the LD-10 was fired in was PAS at a waypoint that was directly ahead and at the same altitude.

Copy, PAS mode. Thanks 

[sylkhan]

On 7/10/2022 at 5:44 AM, ShadowFrost said:

It is not an aerodynamic problem. 

Guidance showed that the LD10 had a issue in terms of control authority at slower speeds with low angles of approach....

When the LD-10 will be corrected ?

[ShadowFrost]

1 hour ago, sylkhan said:

When the LD-10 will be corrected ?

I am not personally aware of any issues at the moment with the LD-10. 

The above changes/problem discussed should have been pushed a couple months ago. 

 

Provide a track file? 

Edited November 5, 2022 by ShadowFrost

[sylkhan]

5 hours ago, ShadowFrost said:

I am not personally aware of any issues at the moment with the LD-10. 

The above changes/problem discussed should have been pushed a couple months ago. 

 

Provide a track file? 

 

Sure, track

Edit : from my tests

Act mode : ok
PAS mode : not ok, guidance pb
SP mode : not ok, guidance pb

testLD10.trk

testLD10-2.trk

testLD10-3.trk

Edited November 5, 2022 by sylkhan

[ShadowFrost]

I will take a more detailed look at the first track, but otherwise, the missile encounters significant control authority issues below 600-700 knots which is probably just missile limitations. 

 

Anything less than 600-700 knots I personally consider out of range. I will have a more detailed look and pass it on still. Personally though, I recommend using ACT for everything that isn't very close range as missile PK drops rapidly lower than 700 knots. You don't have to have a perfect idea of where the emitter is with ACT (provided the emitter is not too close). The loft really helps the distance the missile will go and also changes the angle of descent so the missile can fly to slower speeds in practice.  

 

Edit- Also, feel free to try more manual loft in PAS. A 30-45 degree PAS shot found its targets in the above tests. 
 

Edited November 6, 2022 by ShadowFrost

[JG54_NF2]

Yet, 

I compared HARM and LD10 again, and found that there is indeed the same problem: when the incidence angle of the missile is close to the horizontal, the deviation will increase.

Since the terminal angle of HARM is larger than that of LD 10, this problem is not very serious, but it does have the same characteristics.

I think this should be the code problems of ED, Maybe it can be adjusted

 

[ShadowFrost]

10 hours ago, JG54_NF2 said:

Yet, 

I compared HARM and LD10 again, and found that there is indeed the same problem: when the incidence angle of the missile is close to the horizontal, the deviation will increase.

Since the terminal angle of HARM is larger than that of LD 10, this problem is not very serious, but it does have the same characteristics.

I think this should be the code problems of ED, Maybe it can be adjusted

 

Yeah, the LD-10 used to suffer from it even more in previous patches. A few small changes were made to the guidance to mitigate it. But its always been more prevalent in the LD-10 due to it having less energy which means it often arrives at a lower angle in practice than the Harm. 

 

Edit- After even more testing, I've seen similar encountered even with high angles of impact in PAS mode. Will pass it on. 

Edited November 6, 2022 by ShadowFrost

[Napillo]

8 hours ago, ShadowFrost said:

w small changes were made to the guidance to mitigate it. But its always been more prevalent in the LD-10 due to it having less energy which means it often arrives at a lower a

I tested it, seems 60nm launches from 40,000 ft could reach the target, but for some reason the server de-spawns the missile before it gets to hit, even if it is dead on target.

[JG54_NF2]

2022/11/7 AM1点27分，ShadowFrost说：

Yeah, the LD-10 used to suffer from it even more in previous patches. A few small changes were made to the guidance to mitigate it. But its always been more prevalent in the LD-10 due to it having less energy which means it often arrives at a lower angle in practice than the Harm. 

 

Edit- After even more testing, I've seen similar encountered even with high angles of impact in PAS mode. Will pass it on. 

 

At present, I think you can manually LOFT in PAS mode, that is, deliberately raise the nose before launch, which can produce a very wonderful effect. 

Of course, this problem itself exists. It can only be said that before the code changes, manually LOFT is used to increase the end angle of LD10 to obtain a better hit rate. 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by JG54_NF2

[Kiwispirits]

To confirm some of the testing above:
I have a SAM single mission which I use to try the LD-10 on the JF-17 and also the HARM on the F16 using the HTS pod. Tests done at 35,000 ft and 0.7 Mach.

For the LD-10:
I can get SAM kills at 40nm in ACT (pre-planned target point) from 35k ft and 0.7 Mach. The missile lofts after launch, giving it good range. Closer range shots seem to be slightly more accurate. The LD-10 does not always hit the radar in the face but lands close enough to kill about 80% of the time.

For Passive and self-protect mode launching the LD-10 in level flight at 35k ft and 0.7 Mach only has about 15 to 20nm range as the missile goes straight from the pylon to the target. Kill % a bit lower than ACT mode as it sometimes falls short.
Repeating Passive and self-protect mode but raising the nose of the aircraft to about 15 to 20 degrees before launch  will loft the missiles in a way that is very similar to the ACT launch, and I get similar ranges and kills to the ACT mode (35 to 40nm and about 80% kill)

For the HARM launched from a lock with the HTS pod in the F16:
Results are almost identical to those from the LD-10 in ACT mode - 35-40nm, about 80% kill rate. Not every shot igoes to the face of the radar but hits close enough to kill it.

So in summary:
The LD-10 is at least as effective as the HARM provide you use the correct mode and launch method: Try to set up for ACT (pre-planned) and if you cannot do this remember to angle the nose of the aircraft to 15 to 20 deg before launching in Passive or Self-protect.  Longer range shots will have a lower kill rate.

Do not forget to equip the jamming pod and have it in standby or jamming mode. It will then move the radar icons on the horizontal situation display to show their actual range and bearing, making estimation of range (and therefore likelihood of impact and kill) far easier.

For employment of the LD-10/JF-17 in the SEAD role by using the methods above, I think it is satisfactory. I know others might disagree.

I could not find enough difference between the two missiles to consider the LD-10 bugged.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Kiwispirits