Changes to sd10A

[My_Name_Jeff]

Several quick question on sd10a. 

1. By changing the Max firing range to 36ish nm, does that mean the new flight model of the missile is now causing this missile to have less arm reach. Or does that mean simply the system will now call inrange for closer target?

2. By public info, can anyone link me to where I can see it? Since when I was trying to remind myself what the previous max range was, I couldn't find info stating 70km.

3. Is the sd10a on 120 Api or it didn't change?

[Tango3B]

I did a few quick tests yesterday and the „new“ SD-10A appears to have slighty shorter range, yes. On the other hand it still is a very fast missile (Mach 5) and from what I observed so far the missile maneuvers pretty smooth during its intercept profile. Especially during end game. Is the SD-10A on the „new“ 120 API? I don‘t know. But the rework suggests that it might be. Now, since these changes are to one of the main armament components of the JF-17 I think DEKA should give us a bit of a deeper insight into what was actually done there. Thank you. 

[AeriaGloria]

6 hours ago, Tango3B said:

I did a few quick tests yesterday and the „new“ SD-10A appears to have slighty shorter range, yes. On the other hand it still is a very fast missile (Mach 5) and from what I observed so far the missile maneuvers pretty smooth during its intercept profile. Especially during end game. Is the SD-10A on the „new“ 120 API? I don‘t know. But the rework suggests that it might be. Now, since these changes are to one of the main armament components of the JF-17 I think DEKA should give us a bit of a deeper insight into what was actually done there. Thank you. 

I believe the encyclopedia had it at 75 km. The designer however also says it is 70 km for a 10 km co altitude shot on Mach 1.2 target by same speed shooter. 
 

Funny looking at what Ed forums used to look like

[My_Name_Jeff]

8 hours ago, Tango3B said:

I did a few quick tests yesterday and the „new“ SD-10A appears to have slighty shorter range, yes. On the other hand it still is a very fast missile (Mach 5) and from what I observed so far the missile maneuvers pretty smooth during its intercept profile. Especially during end game. Is the SD-10A on the „new“ 120 API? I don‘t know. But the rework suggests that it might be. Now, since these changes are to one of the main armament components of the JF-17 I think DEKA should give us a bit of a deeper insight into what was actually done there. Thank you. 

Yes I understand, the missile does appear to have shorter range on the had, but does the missile actually have a shorter range or simply the recommended firing range is decreased

[My_Name_Jeff]

2 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I believe the encyclopedia had it at 75 km. The designer however also says it is 70 km for a 10 km co altitude shot on Mach 1.2 target by same speed shooter. 
 

Funny looking at what Ed forums used to look like

Cool bean

[My_Name_Jeff]

9 minutes ago, My_Name_Jeff said:

Yes I understand, the missile does appear to have shorter range on the had, but does the missile actually have a shorter range or simply the recommended firing range is decreased

Don't know what to comment but it sounds like simply an unformal interview, but on the other hand, this is one of the best public info we can get.

[My_Name_Jeff]

8 hours ago, Tango3B said:

I did a few quick tests yesterday and the „new“ SD-10A appears to have slighty shorter range, yes. On the other hand it still is a very fast missile (Mach 5) and from what I observed so far the missile maneuvers pretty smooth during its intercept profile. Especially during end game. Is the SD-10A on the „new“ 120 API? I don‘t know. But the rework suggests that it might be. Now, since these changes are to one of the main armament components of the JF-17 I think DEKA should give us a bit of a deeper insight into what was actually done there. Thank you. 

And yes agree on the rest

[DSplayer]

The changes done in this patch are only to the encyclopedia entries basically with no real bearing on the actual FM or motor. API didn't change either.

[My_Name_Jeff]

45 minutes ago, DSplayer said:

The changes done in this patch are only to the encyclopedia entries basically with no real bearing on the actual FM or motor. API didn't change either.

So can I understand it as only the system suggested max range has changed.

[DSplayer]

2 hours ago, My_Name_Jeff said:

So can I understand it as only the system suggested max range has changed.

I would say that the "statcard" values got changed which has no real impact on performance, including the Rmax, Rmin, etc. computed by the JF.

[Tango3B]

8 hours ago, DSplayer said:

The changes done in this patch are only to the encyclopedia entries basically with no real bearing on the actual FM or motor. API didn't change either.

Source for your claim? It is not that I don‘t believe you but the official changelog states otherwise. Changelog states that there actually were adjustments to missile Mach, range and FM and not just cosmetic changes to the encyclopedia entry which only had a change regarding the Mach entry, by the way. It was changed from Mach 4 to Mach 5. The other values actually remain the same. And as I stated in my previous post…if I am not totally crazy testing on my end indicates a loss of roughly 5 nm max range. Please don’t qoute me on that, however. It is a rather rough estimation on my part. So yeah, I am rather curious regarding your source for your claim. Thank you.

[My_Name_Jeff]

51 minutes ago, Tango3B said:

Source for your claim? It is not that I don‘t believe you but the official changelog states otherwise. Changelog states that there actually were adjustments to missile Mach, range and FM and not just cosmetic changes to the encyclopedia entry which only had a change regarding the Mach entry, by the way. It was changed from Mach 4 to Mach 5. The other values actually remain the same. And as I stated in my previous post…if I am not totally crazy testing on my end indicates a loss of roughly 5 nm max range. Please don’t qoute me on that, however. It is a rather rough estimation on my part. So yeah, I am rather curious regarding your source for your claim. Thankyou.

The system suggested max definitely changed at least from the info given on hsd. As far as the calculated rmax I can't really say since I don't have a on hand range test from the previous patch that I can reenact with current profile. As far as for update log, I think only mach change was clearly stated and new flight model which is very interesting in a good way. Can you elaborate on the test you conducted and what you compared it with to get the conclusion?

[My_Name_Jeff]

1 hour ago, Tango3B said:

Source for your claim? It is not that I don‘t believe you but the official changelog states otherwise. Changelog states that there actually were adjustments to missile Mach, range and FM and not just cosmetic changes to the encyclopedia entry which only had a change regarding the Mach entry, by the way. It was changed from Mach 4 to Mach 5. The other values actually remain the same. And as I stated in my previous post…if I am not totally crazy testing on my end indicates a loss of roughly 5 nm max range. Please don’t qoute me on that, however. It is a rather rough estimation on my part. So yeah, I am rather curious regarding your source for your claim. Thank you.

As in are you suggesting that the drag profile might have changed so that it effected the range? Can't be the new flight profile as far as my observation it's really smooth.

[Tango3B]

1 hour ago, My_Name_Jeff said:

As in are you suggesting that the drag profile might have changed so that it effected the range? Can't be the new flight profile as far as my observation it's really smooth.

Yes, I believe the drag values were altered and I think the overall changes were absolutely justified because what we have now appears to be a more credible missile simulation. To my test: I flew two scenarios which resemble a bit what you can expect on GS’s server. First I fired head on at an F/A-18 at 32k co-alt, my speed at Mach 1 and target speed at 0.92. I came in range at roughly 36nm (40ish before patch) and fired at roughly 22.5nm which was the „sweetspot“ between halfway down to Rne and Rne (around 26.5nm before patch). Second scenario was flown against same target at 15k feet. Same speeds. Came in range at roughly 21.5nm and fired at around 15nm under same criteria as mentioned above (again, before patch both values appeared to be roughly 4-5nm higher). So again, don‘t quote me on that. As you can see this is by no means a scientific approach to measuring exact data but it absolutely gave me a good idea of the current performance. Thank you.

 

reason for edit: own stupidity

Edited December 21, 2023 by Tango3B

[Napillo]

So, assuming they fix the datalink, does the SD-10A now have a connection to datalink?

[WTFCSon]

16 minutes ago, Napillo said:

So, assuming they fix the datalink, does the SD-10A now have a connection to datalink?

Did they say they were going to add that capability this patch?

Edited December 21, 2023 by WTFCSon
Correction, first statement was flat out wrong.

[Hobel]

 

[okopanja]

5 minutes ago, Hobel said:

 

For non-maneuvering target it looks almost identical.

[My_Name_Jeff]

5 hours ago, Napillo said:

So, assuming they fix the datalink, does the SD-10A now have a connection to datalink?

I don't think datalink was fixed at least according to uboat

[My_Name_Jeff]

8 hours ago, Tango3B said:

Yes, I believe the drag values were altered and I think the overall changes were absolutely justified because what we have now appears to be a more credible missile simulation. To my test: I flew two scenarios which resemble a bit what you can expect on GS’s server. First I fired head on at an F/A-18 at 32k co-alt, my speed at Mach 1 and target speed at 0.92. I came in range at roughly 36nm (40ish before patch) and fired at roughly 22.5nm which was the „sweetspot“ between halfway down to Rne and Rne (around 26.5nm before patch). Second scenario was flown against same target at 15k feet. Same speeds. Came in range at roughly 21.5nm and fired at around 15nm under same criteria as mentioned above (again, before patch both values appeared to be roughly 4-5nm higher). So again, don‘t quote me on that. As you can see this is by no means a scientific approach to measuring exact data but it absolutely gave me a good idea of the current performance. Thank you.

 

reason for edit: own stupidity

 

Ok so that would be rmax though not actual performance range. And agree on the rest..

[My_Name_Jeff]

11 hours ago, Tango3B said:

Yes, I believe the drag values were altered and I think the overall changes were absolutely justified because what we have now appears to be a more credible missile simulation. To my test: I flew two scenarios which resemble a bit what you can expect on GS’s server. First I fired head on at an F/A-18 at 32k co-alt, my speed at Mach 1 and target speed at 0.92. I came in range at roughly 36nm (40ish before patch) and fired at roughly 22.5nm which was the „sweetspot“ between halfway down to Rne and Rne (around 26.5nm before patch). Second scenario was flown against same target at 15k feet. Same speeds. Came in range at roughly 21.5nm and fired at around 15nm under same criteria as mentioned above (again, before patch both values appeared to be roughly 4-5nm higher). So again, don‘t quote me on that. As you can see this is by no means a scientific approach to measuring exact data but it absolutely gave me a good idea of the current performance. Thank you.

 

reason for edit: own stupidity

 

And another question, does sd10 take any info from datalink or anything on that sort. For example if connected to datalink thr missile's recapture time is lower or anything like that in dcs?

[Napillo]

1 hour ago, My_Name_Jeff said:

does sd10 take any info from datalink or anything on that sort.

It didn't. I'm hoping if they switched the scheme that maybe it would, but I haven't gotten any update about that. The main issue I had with the SD-10 is losing the track within the first few seconds and it goes to the moon, whereas the AIM-120 would at least attempt to go to the last calculated intercept point.

[My_Name_Jeff]

1 hour ago, Napillo said:

It didn't. I'm hoping if they switched the scheme that maybe it would, but I haven't gotten any update about that. The main issue I had with the SD-10 is losing the track within the first few seconds and it goes to the moon, whereas the AIM-120 would at least attempt to go to the last calculated intercept point.

true, the sd10 started to perform funny when the datalink was broken. So I kind of had a suspicion that was the case.

[okopanja]

I think SD-10A looks better now, especially in terminal guidance it does not loose target so easily anymore. Range is nothing to brag about.

Conditions:

- Target: F-16, low, size: small

- 2xSD-10A + ECM pod

- Launch altitude: 12800m

- Launch speed: Mach 1.45-1.5

Conditions:

- Target: F-18, low, size: small

- 2xSD-10A + ECM pod

- Launch altitude: 14600m

- Launch speed: Mach 1.2-1.26

I gather where there is SD-10A, there must be SD-10B in future?

Edited December 22, 2023 by okopanja

[My_Name_Jeff]

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

I think SD-10A looks better now, especially in terminal guidance it does not loose target so easily anymore. Range is nothing to brag about.

Conditions:

- Target: F-16, low, size: small

- 2xSD-10A + ECM pod

- Launch altitude: 12800m

- Launch speed: Mach 1.45-1.5

Conditions:

- Target: F-18, low, size: small

- 2xSD-10A + ECM pod

- Launch altitude: 14600m

- Launch speed: Mach 1.2-1.26

I gather where there is SD-10A, there must be SD-10B in future?

 

The Pakistan defense forum did mentioned the b varient and according to them the Jeff is using it in their af, but not sure which block since the block we got is 1 2ish block, that will probably determine whether we get it or not. 

 

Yes the guidence is much better at least counting from 2.9 I can tell, do keep in mind I mainly play pve and I've heard some issue with ai so my experience may vary. And it's not that range is a big issue on my end, Im just curious as the update log is very broad mentioning change to speed, flight profile and range, I can't get a full grasp on the exact capability of missile and exactly what changed from those words.