How does the SD-10 missile compare to the AIM-120C?

We have our scientists and super computer resources to CFD our model, thank you very much.

The missiles will not be crippled as expected.

Oh lord, Thank you so much for putting an end to this. I can go back to enjoying this awesome jet. Probably best to lock this thread before fighting kicks off here.

Great answer Deka! Loving the module and the missile characteristics are great.

According to a data-point related by one of the PL-12/SD-10s designers, M1.2 at 30000', co-altitude co-speed, head on and non-maneuvering range is ~70km.

Where is that? Who is the engineer? What kind data-point it is?

Where is that? Who is the engineer? What kind data-point it is?

AFAIK the primary source of the quoted performance/range data point is no longer available.

The Deputy Chief Designer of SD-10 said: The parameter of “max range” is determined by the relative position of missile’s carrier and the target aircraft. The assumed conditions by various countries are different. So what the Russian said the max range 100Km may not be better than what we said the max range 70Km. The max range 70Km in SD-10 marketing promotion brochure is measured under the condition that both the missile’s carrier and the target aircraft are flying at 10Km’s altitude, both the missile carrier’s velocity and target’s velocity are 1.2Mach, their flying direction is reverse(head to head).

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4052536&postcount=14

This can only end with an official response from chizch (or any other ED SME). We already heard Deka opinion.

If they think is behaving as it should in DCS then i'm totally ok with it and life goes on :)

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

there was official announcements about successfully improving the pl-12 missile range to more than 100km around 2008 (version pl-12a) - the update trickled down into the export version (sd10) around 2010 if i remember correctly, presented in the zhuhai airshow. That model was named sd10a or sd10a1 - something to that tune, and was bringing the improvements from pl-12a and pl-12b(?) to the export model

the first version of pl-12 had a range of about 70km (for a 90% poh i think)

i just eyeballed janes real quick/doublechecked the sources

"The Deputy Chief Designer of SD-10 said" ... I'm suspecting they were referring to the guy who started the program back in early 2000 who's now dead according to the Jane's article i was just reading

This whole debate seems to have started because someone was quoting figures from a missile variant that's no longer in production for about a decade (same as mixing up the amraam 120c3 with the c7)... i.e. internet engineers as someone said earlier :)

"The Deputy Chief Designer of SD-10 said" ... I'm suspecting they were referring to the guy who started the program back in early 2000 who's now dead according to the Jane's article i was just reading

Apparently it's taken from an interview in "BING GONG KE JI" magazine, April 2004 ?

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/sd-10-vs-aim-120-latest-versions.81157/page-11#post-1386428

sounds legit, plz fix (i mean what could have changed from 2004)

sounds legit, plz fix (i mean what could have changed from 2004)

Do you have an idea which version of the missile is modeled in sim ? From my knowledge the newest tech which we have simulated in dcs is from about 2008 and it is still simplified due to classified stuff.

Do we have some JF17 and sd-10 from 2019 or what ?

SD-10A

SD-10A

PL-12's export version is called SD-10 (SD-10A as the improved version) and was first revealed to the public during the 2002 Zhuhai Airshow. PL-12 (K/AKK-12?) has been under development at LETRI/607 Institute since early 90s."

Based on this, information from 2004 seems pretty legit..

So you guys are going to keep on complaining until the developers give up their research and go by your opinions? I doubt the developers will make their data available to public and ED themselves said that they require proof before even allowing the weapons to be implemented so I doubt anything will change at this point.

The people argueing in the forum are ones with tens of thousands of post count so they have nothing better to do than just argue for days. Stop getting so upset that someone told you no and go fly whatever else module you enjoy.

the developers have stated a few times that the airplane is introduced in a semi complete state right now, but eventually it'll have working aar possibly an hms etc (if you take a look at the cockpit the switches are there). They're targetting the block 2, but for now they're delivering an updated block 1 with block 2 software upgrades/capabilities. Right now it's a fictional poop o' pterus, same as my f/a 18 etc

i would guess that places it circa 2015/2016 ?

in any case, ED have accepted that the missile's performance is correct, DEKA stand by their implementation, the amraam will be getting reworked next year etc. I don't understand why there's multiple people who seem fixed on proving ED and affiliated developers wrong at this stage, when all the delivered work is clearly work in progress and stated as such (early access etc). This topic seems to be going on forever based on inaccurate data that are being thrown around over and over again?

Also it seems it's not just ED or DEKA who present the same ballpark figures for pl-12, both in the gaming/sim world but also real world intelligence providers/military sources.

p.s. 1 - have you seen any official statements from ED regarding the amraam c version we were given?

p.s. 2 - have you actually looked at the amraam 120c5 cfd study document (www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf)? The authors seem to be implying that the ED implementation actually overperforms compared to the real world missile? I'm quoting their conclusions from page 39 :

"A comparison of the calculated performance of the AMRAAM to the performance of in-game

employment of the AMRAAM shows that the missile is not properly modelled in Digital Combat

Simulator. Similarly, other missiles exhibit performance characteristics that are not representative of

their real performance. In some cases, this causes missiles to underperform; in other cases, missiles

such as the AMRAAM will over-perform their real flight characteristics.

In addition to the flight characteristics of the missile, the tracking capability of the missile was not

studied. The performance of radar and external or internal tracking hardware onboard the AMRAAM

was not studied in this assessment. "

I'm hoping this is a typo and my amraams will be getting boosted instead of nerfed in a year from now, but yeah - this definitely doesn't make me feel confident about the case you guys are trying to build, based on some document that actually implies the amraam is overperforming and info from a missile from 20yrs ago...

....

I'm hoping this is a typo and my amraams will be getting boosted instead of nerfed in a year from now, but yeah - this definitely doesn't make me feel confident about the case you guys are trying to build, based on some document that actually implies the amraam is overperforming and info from a missile from 20yrs ago...

That statement isn't accurate to the current version of DCS. In straightline tests, DCS 120C under performed by around 40% in comparison to "supposed" performance from the CFD you referenced.

Edit- Performance tests were conducted in straight-line range comparisons for reference.

Edit- At mach.83 trials at the altitudes referenced in CFD, straightline performance was still down 40% of what it supposedly should be from the CFD data.

The way to interpret those words is this: "Certain launch conditions will cause missiles in DCS to overperform. Also, certain launch conditions will cause missiles in DCS to underperform."

PL-12's export version is called SD-10 (SD-10A as the improved version) and was first revealed to the public during the 2002 Zhuhai Airshow. PL-12 (K/AKK-12?) has been under development at LETRI/607 Institute since early 90s."

 

Based on this, information from 2004 seems pretty legit..

you might wanna double check your dates - the jeff became operational in paf in 2010..

yeah the amraam doesn't seem to be over performing :)

ED said they'll fix it so i'm just gonna wait for it, in the mean time at least i have the jeff :P

I'm hoping this is a typo and my amraams will be getting boosted instead of nerfed in a year from now, but yeah - this definitely doesn't make me feel confident about the case you guys are trying to build, based on some document that actually implies the amraam is overperforming and info from a missile from 20yrs ago...

Is it a typo or a mis-grammar? What it's saying is that missiles with correct values that will perform well at low altitudes will over-perform at high altitudes.

Put another way, you cannot simultaneously tune for correct performance at all altitude blocks in DCS.

you might wanna double check your dates - the jeff became operational in paf in 2010..

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

I am surprised that deka and some people in the community trying to convince that such a huge margin between aim120c(5 possibly) and sd-10a is real.

Especially in favor for the sd-10a missile from early 2000. It actually goes closer to the Phoenix than to the amraam in sim....

I can't provide data as Mr. Tharos and I don't have time for that, but it seems even that doesn't make any change.

I have pretty much all of the dcs modules as I like to support but JF17 will not be one of them because of this small detail. I was holding my purchase to see how this situation will proceed but ot seems it is going to a dead end.

From my perspective this looks like a cheap way to pump sales - make the airquakers buy it.

P.S. I don't care much about public mp as I rarely play there.. and when I do, I do red, so balance is not what I care.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

I am surprised that deka and some people in the community trying to convince that such a huge margin between aim120c(5 possibly) and sd-10a is real.

Especially in favor for the sd-10a missile from early 2000. It actually goes closer to the Phoenix than to the amraam in sim....

I can't provide data as Mr. Tharos and I don't have time for that, but it seems even that doesn't make any change.

I have pretty much all of the dcs modules as I like to support but JF17 will not be one of them because of this small detail. I was holding my purchase to see how this situation will proceed but ot seems it is going to a dead end.

From my perspective this looks like a cheap way to pump sales - make the airquakers buy it.

 

 

P.S. I don't care much about public mp as I rarely play there.. and when I do, I do red, so balance is not what I care.

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

So you will not buy it, because the SD-10 is modelled to the correct values? :doh:

I am surprised that deka and some people in the community trying to convince that such a huge margin between aim120c(5 possibly) and sd-10a is real.

Especially in favor for the sd-10a missile from early 2000. It actually goes closer to the Phoenix than to the amraam in sim....

I can't provide data as Mr. Tharos and I don't have time for that, but it seems even that doesn't make any change.

I have pretty much all of the dcs modules as I like to support but JF17 will not be one of them because of this small detail. I was holding my purchase to see how this situation will proceed but ot seems it is going to a dead end.

From my perspective this looks like a cheap way to pump sales - make the airquakers buy it.

 

 

P.S. I don't care much about public mp as I rarely play there.. and when I do, I do red, so balance is not what I care.

 

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

Well part of the issue with that is your arguing on a fallacy, the assumption that the simulator is correct and that any deviation is incorrect because the simulator is a correct baseline. If you compare the SD-10 performance against the 120 CFD data you find that they are actually quite similar. I tested personally in max range straight-line tests at mach .83 and found the deviation of the missile to be 1-4 nautical miles worse than the CFD of what the Aim-120C "should" do depending on the altitude it was tested at.

Though I have heard it over performs in straightline tests against CFD at the higher mach tests available. I haven't compared it myself. And of course, is an assumption against the SD-10 that such performance at higher mach is not realistic which is not the argument. It was just noted that at higher mach tests, the SD-10 over performed against 120 CFD under the same conditions. Is it realistic? No clue, just a testing note.

I will never understand why anyone makes arguments against or for something based on what something else does in the simulator. Because you are assuming that whatever you are comparing to is correct which is not a smart thing to do at the very least.

I can't say if the SD-10 performance is accurate or not, I can only compare it to other data available under the assumption that the data available is somewhat accurate. As any mathematical model or recreation will have some degree of inaccuracy to the real world due to vast number of variables involved. (Not to say you can't get quite close)

So, in short, you need to argue against tests/data/etc. from other sources to determine if DCS is accurate. Because if you compare against something in DCS that is not modeled correctly you induce any error from that model into your own.

Lets just assume for a second that the SD-10 was the standard missile of DCS and the Aim-120 just released. You look at the performance and see that the 120 is massively under performing, surely its the aim-120's fault because the SD-10 has been here so long? No, you compare against data to check that both are accurately modeled and performing as expected. So, while there is a confirmed overhaul happening next year to the 120, to assume it is 100% accurate is not a good control to test the SD-10 against. (Even if there wasn't an overhaul coming, you dont test accuracy against other simulated objects)

And for reference, mach .83 straight-line tests. SD-10 to 120 CFD

5000ft SD-10 traveled ~15.6nm before hitting 400kts

500m 120C-5 can travel ~16nm before hitting 400kts

16000ft SD-10 traveled ~19.1nm before hitting 400kts

5000m 120C-5 traveled ~22nm before hitting 400kts

32000ft SD-10 traveled ~33nm before hitting 500kts

10000m 120C-5 traveled ~33nm before hitting 500kts

Note- I wasn't comparing anything other than range and straight-line deviation, the way it gets it range could be wrong in comparison. The straight line range was the only variable I was testing, so that can be the only variable to be considered as "verified" in comparison to CFD.

I dont argue that one is more accurate than the other because I dont know, but in comparison to the CFD 120 straight line performance, the performance of the SD-10 is believable at mach .83. (I've heard it over performs at higher mach in comparison to CFD, so I am specific, mach .83)

I'm not here to argue "Is the SD-10 realistic to DCS 120C or etc." Because of the assumptions that the DCS model is accurate. That's not to say there can't be arguments to "is the SD-10's performance realistic", its just that the data used to compare should not be from DCS because you make the assumption that DCS is accurate.

In short, an argument against the DCS 120 needs to be against the data the DCS 120 is based on and not the simulator's representation. The arguments of "well DCS 120 does this" need to be backed up with more information other than "DCS simulates it this way". Now sure, the DCS 120 may be accurate, but I haven't seen much in the way of external information in this thread. I would like to see something similar to what Heatblur provided for the Aim-54 for both the SD-10 and Aim-120C.

Sources of information that are used for comparison, not an argue of accuracy.

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16vBb9wOABGp7iaxYIk5r7c_cYTFB3Xlfm0VNHdoElII/edit?usp=sharing

Note- Likely grammar issues, its 3AM sorry.

So you will not buy it, because the SD-10 is modelled to the correct values? :doh:

The rest just repeat the same points over and over again. Deka replied to him with "we have a super computer and you are wrong" - this didn't look very convincing to me...

2. It is out of space from the rest of the modules, it doesn't fit in any scenario as the missile is too strong in relationship to the rest in the sim.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk

Well part of the issue with that is your arguing on a fallacy, the assumption that the simulator is correct and that any deviation is incorrect because the simulator is a correct baseline. If you compare the SD-10 performance against the 120 CFD data you find that they are actually quite similar. I tested personally in max range straight-line tests at mach .83 and found the deviation of the missile to be 1-4 nautical miles worse than the CFD of what the Aim-120C "should" do depending on the altitude it was tested at.

 

 

 

Though I have heard it over performs in straightline tests at the higher mach tests available. I haven't compared it myself.

 

 

 

I will never understand why anyone makes arguments against or for something based on what something else does in the simulator. Because you are assuming that whatever you are comparing to is correct which is not a smart thing to do at the very least.

 

 

 

I can't say if the SD-10 performance is accurate or not, I can only compare it to other data available under the assumption that the data available is somewhat accurate. As any mathematical model or recreation will have some degree of inaccuracy to the real world due to vast number of variables involved. (Not to say you can't get quite close)

 

 

 

So, in short, you need to argue against tests/data/etc. from other sources to determine if DCS is accurate. Because if you compare against something in DCS that is not modeled correctly you induce any error from that model into your own.

 

 

 

Lets just assume for a second that the SD-10 was the standard missile of DCS and the Aim-120 just released. You look at the performance and see that the 120 is massively under performing, surely its the aim-120's fault because the SD-10 has been here so long? No, you compare against data to check that both are accurately modeled and performing as expected. So, while there is a confirmed overhaul happening next year to the 120, to assume it is 100% accurate is not a good control to test the SD-10 against. (Even if there wasn't an overhaul coming, you dont test accuracy against other simulated objects)

 

 

 

And for reference, mach .83 straight-line tests. SD-10 to 120 CFD

 

5000ft SD-10 traveled ~15.6nm before hitting 400kts

 

500m 120C-5 can travel ~16nm before hitting 400kts

 

 

 

16000ft SD-10 traveled ~19.1nm before hitting 400kts

 

5000m 120C-5 traveled ~22nm before hitting 400kts

 

 

 

32000ft SD-10 traveled ~33nm before hitting 500kts

 

10000m 120C-5 traveled ~33nm before hitting 500kts

 

 

 

Note- I wasn't comparing anything other than range and straight-line deviation, the way it gets it range could be wrong in comparison. The straight line range was the only variable I was testing, so that can be the only variable to be considered as "verified" in comparison to CFD.

 

 

 

I dont argue that one is more accurate than the other because I dont know, but in comparison to the CFD 120 straight line performance, the performance of the SD-10 is believable at mach .83. (I've heard it over performs at higher mach, so I am specific, mach .83)

 

 

 

I'm not here to argue "Is the SD-10 realistic to DCS 120C or etc." Because of the assumptions that the DCS model is accurate. That's not to say there can't be arguments to is the SD-10's performance realistic, its just that the data used to compare should not be from DCS because you make the assumption that DCS is accurate.

 

 

 

Sources of information that are used for comparison, not an argue of accuracy.

 

 

 

http://www.zaretto.com/sites/zaretto.com/files/missile-aerodynamic-data/AIM120C5-Performance-Assessment-rev2.pdf

 

 

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16vBb9wOABGp7iaxYIk5r7c_cYTFB3Xlfm0VNHdoElII/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

 

 

 

Note- Likely grammar issues, its 3AM sorry.

if some day ED change the way the rest of the missiles are modeled and sd10 fits where it belongs, then ok. But for now, it just doesn't fit the environment.

Sent from my Redmi 4 using Tapatalk