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

Great twitch video from XCOM on the SD-10, He's getting 40nm kills against a manoeuvring AI F-15. Looks like it's significantly outperforming the AMRAAM

 

interesting :)

If i remember well Nineline said they are overhauling AIM-120 in new year.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

Based on the information available, including the size, shape & weight of the missiles I'd say the previous supposed quote of one of the SD10 designers saying that its range is in between the 120B and 120C sounds like the most plausible.

NO CHINA SPEC

02/03/2018

The BLUE SD-10 shall be for training purpose? (RF proximity sensors over painted), (but why to have FoX3 training missile, Fox2 - IR sensor here for simulation of BFM fight, but Fox3??) More likely, for public show.

Last minutes of video is just computer rendered fake.

:doh:

Im happy that we have here again to argue about something, because someone wanted best of the world (even not in real service) for his product at time of the release and on top of that we all are just full of true knowledge about everything.

Look at DCS F-16C, it will have AGM-154B which was never produced and therefore never in service. Am I mad about it? a little, but rather than to be crazy, I will get my glass of whiskey and watch some good movie.

Here is what you want to see, Nineline said the performance of aim120 is CORRECT

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=244711

I can say the performance of the SD-10 succesfully made many online pilots (including me lol) pissed off due to its pretty good PK.

It wont be long until someone make a thread and say its OP and ask Deka to nerf it in the name of realism.

I can say the performance of the SD-10 succesfully made many online pilots (including me lol) pissed off due to its pretty good PK.

 

It wont be long until someone make a thread and say its OP and ask Deka to nerf it in the name of realism.

While Hornet carries 10 spamraam and takes off from carrier with Litening Pod on, F14 is popping enemy jets from 70nm, and F16 is getting AGM-154B which does not even exist.

Nato jets get away with a lot of "realism" problems without much complaints but an accurately modelled missile from another nation is suddenly a risk to the realism of DCS.

While Hornet carries 10 spamraam and takes off from carrier with Litening Pod on, F14 is popping enemy jets from 70nm, and F16 is getting AGM-154B which does not even exist.

 

Nato jets get away with a lot of "realism" problems without much complaints but an accurately modelled missile from another nation is suddenly a risk to the realism of DCS.

The Phoenix is as accurate as Heatblur can make it (they went to great lengths to do so) and it's supposedly capable of flying 100+ miles under the right conditions. So it flying 70miles, is not a realism issue.

The Hornet having 10 Slammers and a Litening Pod, while taking off from carrier is also not a realism issue, since the total weight with those, plus internal fuel, plus two Sidewinders is 42,659 lbs and the max take off weight is 51,900. It looks ridiculous, but it's not beyond the stated limits of the plane.

Don't know why they made the AGM-154B for F-16 if it never existed. But I can't see how it really harms anything either. The weapon was going to be deployed on USAF block 50 F-16's.

As for the SD-10, all I care is that they modeled it as accurately as they could. I haven't found it to be too difficult though. The issue lies with the underperforming AIM-120 more than anything else. If it worked properly, I'm sure you would be hearing alot less complaining about the JF-17/SD-10.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon#AGM-154B_(anti-armor)

AGM-154B is most certainly a real weapon. A variant was used in Allied Force campaign in 1999 over Serbia. B was developed and fitted to Air Force F-16, B-1B, F-15E. But Navy did not procure B, opting for C, which has single HE charge.

For odd reason, Serbians recovered a used empty AGM-154 dispencer, after it released the submunitions, and placed it on display in their Air Force Museum hall dedicated to Allied Force or Kosovo Campaign as they call it.

While Hornet carries 10 spamraam and takes off from carrier with Litening Pod on, F14 is popping enemy jets from 70nm, and F16 is getting AGM-154B which does not even exist.

 

Nato jets get away with a lot of "realism" problems without much complaints but an accurately modelled missile from another nation is suddenly a risk to the realism of DCS.

All those loadouts are realistic, if not commonly used.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=TItFddKo&id=98F1051C0B956D9157D268608B84FF629ED1869C&thid=OIP.TItFddKoQCvKzWayZU0D5AHaFD&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fupload.wikimedia.org%2fwikipedia%2fcommons%2fe%2fe5%2fFA-18_Hornet_VX-4_with_10_AMRAAM.jpg&exph=2047&expw=3000&q=F%2fA-18C+with+10+AIM-120+missiles&simid=607996020717846635&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0

Catapults on Nimitz class are certainly strong enough to launch F/A-18C at its maximum T/O weight. Thats the advantage of catapults and aircraft landing gear with design strength to handle the stress, over ramp launch.

Watch videos of SU-33 (real world) launches from Russian and Chinese (J-15) sources.Note that aircraft settles after it leaves the ramp, but gains enough airspeed to climb. Provided both engines are working and aircraft is within restriction. Even combat launches off Syrian coast by SU-33 were limited to two R-73 and two R-24 and two rocket pods. The aircraft also launched with no more then 25% fuel, and had to tank immediately after departure. Since Russian Navy has no carrier capable tanker aircraft, all air operations from Kuz have to be supported by shore based IL-76 Midas tankers. Which limits operational range and capability. Chinese PLAAN has same restrictions. For now the only solution is buddy stores for SU-33 and J-15, which of course subtracts from combat sortie rate as combat platform is subsumed to a tanker role.

US Navy is in the same bind, with F/A-18E/F used as buddy store in-flight tankers. But Nimitz class air wing has 80 or so F/A-18 vs 18-24 on Kuz and Liaoning. Expect future Chinese carriers to have catapults , carry more aircraft, and may have dedicated tankers, as a carrier based AWACS platform can also be adapted to a tanker role. Exactly when we will see those new carriers from China and Russia, I do not know. 10-30 years probably, depending on geopolitical situation.

If anything missile ranges in DCS are understated. For both sides of geopolitical fence. AIM-154 would get lobbed to 84K feet , then arcs over to engage target with high energy.

Yep, SD-10 does not do lead pursuit off the rail but mostly flies straight and only does a sorta lead pursuit when closer to the target. I've also seen some interesting stuff witht he PL-5E, namely it doing Mach 4.5 at 28.000 feet and killing at 7-10nm headon on a maneuvering target. Considering the burntime of both missiles this is kinda hard to believe.

The issue lies with the underperforming AIM-120 more than anything else. If it worked properly, I'm sure you would be hearing alot less complaining about the JF-17/SD-10.

Bingo

Not bingo. While the high drag of various missiles needs to be addressed (R-27s, AIM-120s, R-77s), the low drag of SD-10 is excessively low.

SD-10 needs a correction without talking about other missiles. It's making a hit at 70nm in a scenario where that range should be 70Km. That's a significant over-performance.

Not bingo. While the high drag of various missiles needs to be addressed (R-27s, AIM-120s, R-77s), the low drag of SD-10 is excessively low.

 

 

SD-10 needs a correction without talking about other missiles. It's making a hit at 70nm in a scenario where that range should be 70Km. That's a significant over-performance.

Prove it. This whole complaining without doing any actual proper research and then writing paragraphs of information in forums where facts are mixed with misinformation is a joke. I am done defending. These guys want a simulation where each jet is as capable as back in vietnam. I'm out.

Sure, I'll prove it.

Guys look at the latest Growing Sidewinder clip, particularly the last part in tacview.

What is amazing for me is how little the SD10 corrects his flight over the amraam, so besides having what seems like lower drag (maybe this is not true but it holds over mach 4 for a lot of its flight time) it also flies so much smarter without stupid high g maneouvers.

PN guidance coefficients are tuned very carefully by our missile team.

PN guidance coefficients are tuned very carefully by our missile team.

Thank you. I really appreciate an official clarification in the matter.

Currently we do tune the SFM aerodynamic coefficient according to our CFD data, but I think it could be better (and inherently) used on 6DOF rigid-body model since the current SFM are too restrictive on some aspect.

What is amazing for me is how little the SD10 corrects his flight over the amraam, so besides having what seems like lower drag (maybe this is not true but it holds over mach 4 for a lot of its flight time) it also flies so much smarter without stupid high g maneouvers.

From what I've read on the matter, this is correct behavior. The amount of correction is inversely proportional to the range to target. I can in no way compare either the AMRAAM or the SD-10 with their real life counterparts, but in my understanding, the SD-10 behaves much more realistically. Kudos to Deka. ED has said that the AMRAAM will also receive an overhaul soon, so I'm looking forward to that.

Yeah for me the SD10 is behaving like i would expect from a modern missile. I really hope ED improve the navigation on the aim120, cause i also think that due to aerodinamics and engine performance it should beat or at least be on par with the SD10 in range.

It is really difficult to get hits over 12mn against any average player even at high altitude which of course seems way too short, the missile just bleeds energy so so fast. With the SD10 on the other hand, any shot within 20mn needs to be taken seriously which is so nice and fun, it gets back the b on bvr.

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

I think ED can potentially adopt our PN guidance coefficients to extend the range of AIM120 on maneuvering target.

I think ED can potentially adopt our PN guidance coefficients to extend the range of AIM120 on maneuvering target.

What I'm going to say now is only half-science, because I haven't run enough tests at this point:

You have a very (un-physically) low Cx0 at high mach (I have the DCS dragbuilder and I've just ran the numbers to produce the DCS Cx0 graph).

Nothing has such low drag at this size - it's about 1/3 of the drag of any other low-drag missile that I've seen a CFD or empirical study for.

The fact is that this drag is probably too low in the subsonic region also.

This results in the missile keeping a lot of speed for much longer than it should.

A lot of speed means little maneuvering vs. a target, since the intercept point at all times remains near the target (of course, this only really matters when PN constant is relatively high, so within 5km in this case).

I have not analyzed Cy0 as that is much more difficult and my understanding of it is a lot more superficial, but at the same time - Cy0 and Cx0 combine to produce loaded drag - ie. drag under AoA. With such low Cx0, the missile isn't paying the price for making turns, not that it ever seems to make high-g turns.

The CFD curve for AMRAAM in DCS looks like this:

0.023

0.048

0.40

0.027

2.3

1.5

Your numbers look like this:

0.012

0.042

0.012

0.003

1.20

1.50

They shouldn't be THAT different, since these are drag coefficients.

Finally, your rocket motor has a 6sec boost and 4sec sustain. This is not impossible of course, but it is unusual - for a boost-sustain motor I'd expect the opposite configuration. Boost-sustain AAMs most tend to be slower than all-boost variants, but at the same time there are exceptions for missiles with exceptionally powerful sustainers (eg. R-27E, and you might say AIM-54 is all-sustain).

In this, the SD-10 squarely falls between AMRAAM and AIM-7 in total weight. I don't know what the fuel fraction is supposed to be - maybe it is unusually high but if not then I expect it to have behavior between AIM-7 and AMRAAM and right now it exceeds them by a lot and here I refer to IRL + CFD data.

We can talk about more accurate tuning because nothing is perfect, but the numbers you have a very uncharacteristically low which is why you get so much 'hang time' from this missile, and so much speed at ranges where it shouldn't be having them.

I would be expecting in the 70km Rmax scenario that this missile would hit with M1.2-1.3 maybe. Right now it carries a lot more speed.

From what I've read on the matter, this is correct behavior. The amount of correction is inversely proportional to the range to target. I can in no way compare either the AMRAAM or the SD-10 with their real life counterparts, but in my understanding, the SD-10 behaves much more realistically. Kudos to Deka. ED has said that the AMRAAM will also receive an overhaul soon, so I'm looking forward to that.

Yeah for me the SD10 is behaving like i would expect from a modern missile. I really hope ED improve the navigation on the aim120, cause i also think that due to aerodinamics and engine performance it should beat or at least be on par with the SD10 in range.

It is really difficult to get hits over 12mn against any average player even at high altitude which of course seems way too short, the missile just bleeds energy so so fast. With the SD10 on the other hand, any shot within 20mn needs to be taken seriously which is so nice and fun, it gets back the b on bvr.

 

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

AMRAAM's PN constants might need a little more tuning but they effectively behave the same way. The difference is that AMRAAM gets slow a lot faster - it's much too draggy in game. SD-10 on the other hand doesn't have enough drag.