S530 Range

In fact, AIM-7F and later compared to Super 530D would have similar practical ranges.

But the speed profile is different. You can reach the same range with more or less the same average speed but different top depending on your thrust profile and drag.

The Super 530D burns for 10 to 11 seconds. The AIM-7F and later burns for 16 seconds.

Indeed the body diameter has an impact. From DGA historical publication, industry wanted to reduce Super 530F diameter compared to R530, but French Air Force preferred to keep the same diameter to lower technological risk.

At the time of Super 530F development they were worried about high and fast targets.

The body diameter has less impact in that scenario (look at AIM-54 shape, not really narrow body either).

Then they realised they were lagging behind in look down/ shoot down.

Mirage 2000C was developed with still high and fast target in minds, but adding look down/ shoot down. And to be fair, we were late to the party compared to F-4J and F-15A.

The Thomson CSF RDI radar was new and took a little longer than expected time to develop.

The Super 530D was an upgrade from Super 530F (new seeker and more impulse in the engine).

The M53 engine was adapted from a project for twin engine heavy weight fighter.

It was developed after the Pratt & Whitney - SNECMA TF306.

In fact, AIM-7F and later compared to Super 530D would have similar practical ranges.

But the speed profile is different. You can reach the same range with more or less the same average speed but different top depending on your thrust profile and drag.

 

The Super 530D burns for 10 to 11 seconds. The AIM-7F and later burns for 16 seconds.

 

Indeed the body diameter has an impact. From DGA historical publication, industry wanted to reduce Super 530F diameter compared to R530, but French Air Force preferred to keep the same diameter to lower technological risk.

 

At the time of Super 530F development they were worried about high and fast targets.

The body diameter has less impact in that scenario (look at AIM-54 shape, not really narrow body either).

 

Then they realised they were lagging behind in look down/ shoot down.

Mirage 2000C was developed with still high and fast target in minds, but adding look down/ shoot down. And to be fair, we were late to the party compared to F-4J and F-15A.

 

The Thomson CSF RDI radar was new and took a little longer than expected time to develop.

The Super 530D was an upgrade from Super 530F (new seeker and more impulse in the engine).

The M53 engine was adapted from a project for twin engine heavy weight fighter.

It was developed after the Pratt & Whitney - SNECMA TF306.

Thanks Jojo for your contribution. I can remember some debates at the GERMAS about American weaponry, we had tons of NATO-sourced doc that I spent quite some time reading, we didn't have the Super at the time and the 530 was a real pig to condition and test.

As you pointed out, at a higher altitude, a larger diameter would matters less, especially during the propelled phase of the flight where the missile AoA is minimum, after that as speed comes down, body drag increases as the AAM need more AoA to keep the same amount of lift, even if it is not maneuvering.

That's where one also has to take into account factors such as lifting surface and shape, the MICA retains the Super 530 formula of long, narrow surfaces, participating to the missile longitudinal rigidity and possibly reducing AoA and body drag as speed decreases.

The debate about body drag isn't new nor is it a thing of the past with the event of ASRAAM AIM-9/MICA .

Surface shape and positioning if of great importance with AAMs due to their inherent loss of energy, the long/narrow shape tend to minimise loss of energy due to increased AoA and body drag, reason for the ASRAAM lifting body shape, something absent in the AIM-7 design.

And as you said, their speed profile is different, the AIM-7 burning 5 to 6 sec longer, I couldn't see how the Super-530 could achieve 0.5 Mach higher with a slower G onset.

It would be interesting to know how the AIM-7 range was computed because in the Max range of the Super-530, a climb of 30.000ft seems to be taken into account.

I managed to find some archival material online, some interesting drawings of the wind tunnel model which shows just how narrow the wings of the Super-530 are.

https://aviation.paris/en/module/xipblog/single?id=25&rewrite=Maquette-soufflerie-missile-Matra-530D&page_type=post

ps, I'm still waiting for my RAM to be delivered, so I didn't have the opportunity to even take the Mirage for a spin yet.:D

Here is a test I did.

Target is MiG-25RBT flying @ M2.4/ 65 500ft (can't set much higher in ME). IA set to ignore threat.

I'm flying @ M1.6/ 35 000ft.

Firing at 37Nm with +10° nose up attitude (compared to previous test, it does help a little bit).

The missile does catch up +30500ft (+9300m), flies for roughly 20.5Nm (38km) during 42.5 seconds.

Considering that in Matra publication, the shot is taken at 15 000m/ 49 000ft, I think we are pretty close. :smilewink:

Here is a test I did.

 

Target is MiG-25RBT flying @ M2.4/ 65 500ft (can't set much higher in ME). IA set to ignore threat.

I'm flying @ M1.6/ 35 000ft.

 

Firing at 37Nm with +10° nose up attitude (compared to previous test, it does help a little bit).

 

The missile does catch up +30500ft (+9300m), flies for roughly 20.5Nm (38km) during 42.5 seconds.

 

Considering that in Matra publication, the shot is taken at 15 000m/ 49 000ft, I think we are pretty close. :smilewink:

This looks rather good, but if physics applied properly to this AAM, we should see a clear increase in range in snap-down flight, which is why I am skeptical about the amount of drag simulated for it.

It will be a while before there are CFD results to apply here.

Repost from another S530 topic, this one is perhaps more relevant.

The Super 530D retains the same general aerodynamic features and internal layout as its Super 530F predecessor, with cruciform low aspect ratio wings and cruciform aft controls. However, the stainless steel body is longer to accommodate a new radome & seeker assembly and a new and more powerful dual-thrust solid propellant motor. The missile is 3.80 metres long, has a body diameter of 263 mm, a wing span of 0.62 metres and with the same warhead as the Super 530F missile, weighing 270 kg.

Guidance is by the mono-pulse AD26 CW Doppler semi-active seeker, which has improved ECCM capability, and improved capability against low-flying targets. The missile's guidance unit is also fitted with digital micro-processing, which enables the seeker to be reprogrammed against new threats. The missile has a claimed maximum interception altitude of 80,000 feet (24,400 metres), with a snap-up capability of 40,000 feet (12,200 metres), and a snap-down capability to targets at 200 feet (60 metres). The missile has a range of 40 km and a maximum speed of Mach 5.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Super_530

Some extra details about the Super-530D, but I haven't seen any explaining how they manage 40km range with a snap-up flight profile of 40.000 ft with no significant increase in range in snap-down flight.

From my humble PoV, knowing how DGA operates with their data, the true Maximum aerodynamic range of this AAM is "bunkered" since it is still in service with some DGA clients, so we have the DCS 40 km range to play with, which is a slight disadvantage since I believe that the equivalent AIM-7 and even early AIM-120 Max ranges are given in Max Aero.

About different Max Ranges, I'll refer to the complete and well-documented F/A-18 Flight Manual of Jane's for the acronyms, it's better than posting bad info.

On top of its snap-up capabilities, we also learn that the look-down shot-down firing limits are for a target flying no lower than 200 ft/60 m, so checking on the target altitude is a must in this mode.

You aren't going to be able to check that at all. And it's also irrelevant without knowing the reason for this limitation - my guess would be the fuze would be an issue here.

Is snap-up/down just 'point the missile up or down in the first maneuver' or is there more to it? Obviously it's there in terms of a large altitude separation, but I haven't found any useful descriptions of what snap-up/down is other than that.

Repost from another S530 topic, this one is perhaps more relevant.

 

 

 

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Super_530

 

Some extra details about the Super-530D, but I haven't seen any explaining how they manage 40km range with a snap-up flight profile of 40.000 ft with no significant increase in range in snap-down flight.

 

From my humble PoV, knowing how DGA operates with their data, the true Maximum aerodynamic range of this AAM is "bunkered" since it is still in service with some DGA clients, so we have the DCS 40 km range to play with, which is a slight disadvantage since I believe that the equivalent AIM-7 and even early AIM-120 Max ranges are given in Max Aero.

 

About different Max Ranges, I'll refer to the complete and well-documented F/A-18 Flight Manual of Jane's for the acronyms, it's better than posting bad info.

 

On top of its snap-up capabilities, we also learn that the look-down shot-down firing limits are for a target flying no lower than 200 ft/60 m, so checking on the target altitude is a must in this mode.

I'm not sure about how much range do you expect in shoot down situation ?

You seem to think that if we get 40km range in high altitude, we should get more in shoot down situation.

But the missile will only burn for 1/4th of its flight time, and even if going down hill, it will be flying in more dense air. So the drag will increase.

The here is a huge drag difference between FL400 and up, and 200ft AGL...

In game it's the same thing for AIM-54 which has tremendous range in high altitude but much less in low altitude (even if it's still better than anything else).

You aren't going to be able to check that at all. And it's also irrelevant without knowing the reason for this limitation - my guess would be the fuze would be an issue here.

 

Is snap-up/down just 'point the missile up or down in the first maneuver' or is there more to it? Obviously it's there in terms of a large altitude separation, but I haven't found any useful descriptions of what snap-up/down is other than that.

Apart for the limitation for 60m altitudes of the target, (it might also come from the radar), what I am trying to determine is the influence of the Kinetic Energy vs gravity with the Super 530.

We already established that it could hit a target at 40 km range BUT with an elevation of 30.000ft, so in all logic, following the laws of physics, range in level flight should be longer and inferior to snap-down flight.

I don't think this has been really simulated, we know how DGA operates, the 40 km range is just an average not given with MaxAero data, we saw this with the ranges given in the case of the MICA after a test conducted by the Taiwanese Air Force.

Logically it should be easy to correct and hopefully, we might see a data update for this missile, speed and altitude should be the "more to it" you mentioned, they both are significant factors in AAM ranges.

We already established that it could hit a target at 40 km range BUT with an elevation of 30.000ft, so in all logic, following the laws of physics, range in level flight should be longer and inferior to snap-down flight.

I don’t think so.

The increase in drag will be greater than the dive benefit when engaging targets at low altitude.

Overall, the ranges at high and low altitude for targets at the same level are in line with what we could expect.

The snap up scenario is fine too.

I don’t see any reason to seriously doubt about the shoot down range.

Apart for the limitation for 60m altitudes of the target, (it might also come from the radar),

Nope, radar will track to altitude zero. What's the difference between tracking at 60m and 0m? Nothing. Same ground reflection and multi-path issues. The only issue here will be the proximity fuze, IMHO.

what I am trying to determine is the influence of the Kinetic Energy vs gravity with the Super 530.

A maximum of +1g of acceleration going down, maximum of -1g going up.

We already established that it could hit a target at 40 km range BUT with an elevation of 30.000ft, so in all logic, following the laws of physics, range in level flight should be longer and inferior to snap-down flight.

Sure, you could be shooting from 40000' to 70000', which is conceivable vs a MiG-25. You won't get that range shooting from 30000' to 200' - as jojo pointed out, higher drag as the missile plunges into thicker atmosphere will eat the missile's speed, and this is a fat missile. It'll be draggy.

We see this exact behavior predicted by NASA's PMHT with Phoenix missiles. The Phoenix will launch at 50000' down into the ground at a significant angle, and lose significant speed while the rocket motor is still burning. Now, the acceleration on the Phoenix isn't that great, but the motor burn time on the 530 isn't anywhere near as long either, and the last bunch of seconds are spent in a similarly 'weak' sustain stage.

Snap down test.

I'm flying @ M0.9/ 20 000ft.

Target is MiG-25RBT @ M0.9/ 1 000ft.

Again, no evasive action from the target.

- First shot @ 20Nm. The missile impact after 42 seconds of flight, terminal velocity = M0.85 (so in this case, 20Nm is almost Rmax1). Missile doesn't have much energy left, any maneuver will easily defeat the missile.

- Second shot @ 13.6Nm. The missile impact after 27 seconds of flight, terminal velocity = M1.3 (so higher PK shot)

Last test, target at the same altitude at 35 000ft, I'm flying M1.62.

This one is a fail as the missile self destruct after 45 seconds of flight, but it's interesting as we can see we get better performances by going up +30 000ft than staying at the same altitude.

The thing is the real Super 530D has loft profile, but not in DCS. However we should be able to loft manually by pitching up.

Nope, radar will track to altitude zero. What's the difference between tracking at 60m and 0m? Nothing. Same ground reflection and multi-path issues. The only issue here will be the proximity fuze, IMHO.

 

 

 

A maximum of +1g of acceleration going down, maximum of -1g going up.

 

 

 

Sure, you could be shooting from 40000' to 70000', which is conceivable vs a MiG-25. You won't get that range shooting from 30000' to 200' - as jojo pointed out, higher drag as the missile plunges into thicker atmosphere will eat the missile's speed, and this is a fat missile. It'll be draggy.

 

We see this exact behavior predicted by NASA's PMHT with Phoenix missiles. The Phoenix will launch at 50000' down into the ground at a significant angle, and lose significant speed while the rocket motor is still burning. Now, the acceleration on the Phoenix isn't that great, but the motor burn time on the 530 isn't anywhere near as long either, and the last bunch of seconds are spent in a similarly 'weak' sustain stage.

It's more complex than -/+ 1G, you'll have to compute kinetic energy and it matters a lot.

I have made the case for the S530D supposedly higher drag coefficient than that of the AIM-7, based on the aerodynamic formula used by both.

To determine the drag coefficient you can't base a calculation on frontal area only, the global lift coefficient of any area in play must be taken into account, including body lift and this last part is perhaps the most important.

Two things here: with such relatively small-sized/low drag objects, drag lowers with increase of speed once in supersonic.

Then if you compare their respective lifting areas, you can figure something else; the S530D smaller wingspan but larger area might well drag less during its propelled phase, because it will induce less body drag due to increased AoA as speed decreases from acceleration to sustained flight to free flight.

That's the main reason for the S530D to be 0.5 Mach faster than the AIM-7 despite only slightly less than 4.65 in superior diameter but it also must provide more thrust in both propelled phases.

The S530D was designed with targets such as the Mig-25 in mind, this never was the case of the AIM-7 or even the AIM-54, they both were designed with range in mind and vs slower targets.

This means that their design relies more on lift and less on thrust/speed, even if the Max Mach of the AIM-54 is also M 5.0, it will do so with roughly 40% less lifting surface relative to its body size and weight, meaning more body drag and AoA for a body more than 16 in wider when in free flight.

So here you have at least one explanation for the AIM-54 loss of speed in terminal phase in snap-down even with its engine still on, it drags more due to the combination of frontal area, body drag and induced drag at lower speeds in denser air.

NASA gives this equation for Drag coefficient:

"drag D is equal to the drag coefficient Cd times the density r times half of the velocity V squared times the reference area A".

So as you can see, even if the AIM-7 is similarly slimmer, at lower altitude the difference will not be that great if not in favor of the S530D.

This was the complicated explanation for what specialists widely agreed on at the time, the aerodynamic of the MATRA Super 530 was superior, it's Cd lower by virtue of its aerodynamic design.

On the influence of altitude and speed for missile range, I have found a study and downloaded a PDF with those graphs, they are consistent with what I've learned working on the Mirage IIIE 530 at GERMAS BA0192 Dijon in my time, so I take it seriously:

Jojo: Even if air density was a factor great enough to prevent an increase in range in snap down, it shouldn't be the same in level flight from 30.000 ft.

Another graph by NASA on the probability of hit from 6000 m/19685 ft shows that due only to increased kinetic energy, and capacity to maneuver, you could get a PK increase of up to <> 40% compared to a snap-up flight profile, this means that a longer range in snap-down, your missile is more likely to hit than in snap-up in much denser air that at 30.000 ft for an equivalent range.

The Analysis of a Generic Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Model.

NASA Technical Memorandum 109057

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940031931.pdf

Missile Simulation Testing.

To evaluate the model, extensive testing was performed.

 

The launching aircraft was positioned at an altitude of 6,000meters. A grid was set up in front of the launching aircraft that extended 5,000 meters downrange, 4,000 meters to both sides of the aircraft, and 6,000 meters above and below the launching aircraft.

 

Each of the axis were then broken down into 25 meter increments.

 

Each point in the grid indicated a starting position for the target aircraft.

 

The launching aircraft traveled downrange in straight and level flight at a constant velocity of Mach 0.7.

 

The target aircraft was also in straight and level flight at Mach 0.7. Mach 0.7 was chosen as the test velocity because the majority of tactical encounters occur in the subsonic range.

 

The direction of travel for the target aircraft was away from the launching aircraft.

Look at your missiles range table.

From 30 000ft to 50 000ft you get more than double the range.

From 30 000ft to 10 000ft you get less than half the range

So if you travel up, you will gain range.(loft profile)

If you travel down you will loose range.

In high performance launch we can’t get the maximum out of Super 530D because of self destruction at 45 seconds. Above FL200 the missile will self destruct at supersonic speed.

Below it will slow down <M1.0 before 45s.

I don’t know for sure if the speed profile is accurate enough ?

The top speed seems lower than advertised (barely M4.2 when shot at M1.6).

So I tend to think that the missile should have higher acceleration to reach higher speed.

But on the other hand, the range seems good compared to available open source data.

So maybe it should also have ate the same time:

- higher thrust & top speed

- higher drag.

Look at your missiles range table.

From 30 000ft to 50 000ft you get more than double the range.

From 30 000ft to 10 000ft you get less than half the range

So if you travel up, you will gain range.(loft profile)

If you travel down you will loose range.

 

In high performance launch we can’t get the maximum out of Super 530D because of self destruction at 45 seconds. Above FL200 the missile will self destruct at supersonic speed.

Below it will slow down <M1.0 before 45s.

 

I don’t know for sure if the speed profile is accurate enough ?

The top speed seems lower than advertised (barely M4.2 when shot at M1.6).

So I tend to think that the missile should have higher acceleration to reach higher speed.

But on the other hand, the range seems good compared to available open source data.

So maybe it should also have ate the same time:

- higher thrust & top speed

- higher drag.

It was a Fluent simulation done from a typical simulated AAM in comparison to the others and I use it as Example to illustrate my point:

Kinetic energy, altitude and/or speed provides the AAM with greater NEZ, which means that at the same range it has more energy to spare, translate this by greater MaxAero range, the second graph top should read Mach instead of [km].

And you're right, S530D is heavier and it needs greater G onset to reach a higher speed than AIM-7, I highlighted this point too, but the other point I made was that despite the larger diameter,

in propelled flight, its aerodynamic is better than AIM-7,

It lifting surfaces are similar low aspect ratio than the AIM-54 but double the surface than a delta, they fly a very low AoA (even close to 0 AoA), and in supersonic, low aspect ratio wings drag less than the delta higher aspect ratio of the AIM-7 delta.

As a thumb rule, we should be able to hit targets further than the 40 km reached in a 30.000 ft snap up scenario in snap-down, gravity plus kinetic energy beats higher air density and explains a higher kill ratio obtained by NASA in their simulation at 6000 m/ M 0.7.

Apply this to an M 5.0 AAM fired from 10.000ft higher and at higher speed, and you'll have a similar effect due to that and combined gravity, meaning longer Max range than 40 km.

At the moment, I am not sure this is properly simulated, you only know (and your fellow Mirage 2000 pilot) since you have the DCS experience of it, in real life though, I'm sure DGA did bunker on those data, they changed policies a few years ago about disclosure of such info.

According to this source:

. The missile has a claimed maximum interception altitude of 80,000 feet (24,400 metres), with a snap-up capability of 40,000 feet (12,200 metres), and a snap-down capability to targets at 200 feet (60 metres).

 

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Super_530

Good data about this Super 530 D are very difficult to find, one can only gather bits there and then but in all logic, the DCS simulation of the D is still "work in progress".

There is some work to be done with this missile if we want it to be anywhere near realistic, it's not a dumb critic of developers, I try to contribute by passing info so they can fine-tune it, as for the MATRA doc I already posted, my source, an active AdlA PETAF was clear, it doesn't involve the Super 530 D but the F and it dates from the 2000 C RDM.

About higher drag at M 5.0, it mostly applies to larger bodies with higher induced drag, even the X-15 could manage a decrease in drag at M 5.0 depending on how it was trimmed, it's a very good example because there is no aircraft closer to a M 5.0 AAM.

If you look at the graph, you'll see that when the Cl is moderate, the Cd can easily remain negative, which is the case of a low-drag AAM in most of its flight time.

I wasn’t comparing to AIM-7, I meant that in game the missile doesn’t reach advertised top speed.

Shot at M1.6 it barely reaches M4.2, it’s +2.6. I think it should be more.

But if you increase top speed alone, you will increase range.

And the maximum ranges are not that bad compared to open source data.

And I disagree with you on that point. I don’t think that kinetic energy and gravity will overcome drag in shoot down.

In you graph, the Cd is never negative, minimum for Cl = 0 is 0.4 at M6.0

I wasn’t comparing to AIM-7, I meant that in game the missile doesn’t reach advertised top speed.

Shot at M1.6 it barely reaches M4.2, it’s +2.6. I think it should be more.

But if you increase top speed alone, you will increase range.

And the maximum ranges are not that bad compared to open source data.

 

And I disagree with you on that point. I don’t think that kinetic energy and gravity will overcome drag in shoot down.

 

In you graph, the Cd is never negative, minimum for Cl = 0 is 0.4 at M6.0

Well you might disagree with me but that's NASA conclusion:

"There exists a larger concentration of hits in the lower portion of the slice due to the effect of gravity on the missile".

That's comparing snap-up to snap-down at the same Mach (0.7) and same altitude (6000m).

The number of kills as explained by the doc reflects the ability of the AAM to maneuver, meaning it has more energy to do that.

This means that if the simulation was taking gravity into account we should have a longer range in snap-down despite the higher air density, this and other clues makes me say that the work is not finished with this AAM, I do not have as much knowledge of US missiles bar the fact that their data aren't as bunkered as that given by DGA for all public use.

At M 0.7, missiles drag more, all of them have a higher Cd in subsonic even more in transonic like everything else, they only start to lose drag in supersonic thanks to a much lower AoA and when they pass their transonic regime, the strength of the S530D comes from the optimization of its aerodynamic for this high Mach flight regime and a more modern design, low aspect ratio like AIM-54 only lower, but twice the surface of a delta, since it is mainly a rectangular planform.

AIM-54 is much more comparable to the older 530, and in supersonic, there is only one AAM design which would give a lower Cd than the S530D at low AoA/Cl, it's the wingless shape, impractical unless like the ASRAAM, you turn it into a lifting body with TCV, meaning no longer a circular-shaped tube.

As for this graph, it shows the normal transonic drag increase below M 1.0 from critical Mach, then a Cd decrease in supersonic as long as the AoA stays low with a low Cl, the Cd curve stays negative.

That's for an X-15 with a lot larger frontal area and wing surface, for this reason, you can bet that low drag AAMs will have their Cd curves staying negative at higher AoA than the X-15, I use this graph for illustration but I've learned this long ago.

The problem with slide you are referring to is that it’s a short range missile test.

In horizontal flight that’s just 4 000m range at 6 000m altitude.

If you are shooting from 6000m to at a target at sea level and just 2000m ahead of you, that’s a hell of a steep dive (72°).

So off course here the gravity is helping the missile.

When I’m shooting from 20 000ft to a target at 1 000ft, and the missile travels for 9Nm, that’s just 19° dive angle.

I will add that “drag defence” (turning cold and diving) is a valid defensive tactic against any missile in game, and in any flight simulator I have been playing with missiles.

So it would mean that absolutely everyone is wrong on this aspect.

The problem with slide you are referring to is that it’s a short range missile test.

In horizontal flight that’s just 4 000m range at 6 000m altitude.

If you are shooting from 6000m to at a target at sea level and just 2000m ahead of you, that’s a hell of a steep dive (72°).

So off course here the gravity is helping the missile.

 

When I’m shooting from 20 000ft to a target at 1 000ft, and the missile travels for 9Nm, that’s just 19° dive angle.

 

I will add that “drag defence” (turning cold and diving) is a valid defensive tactic against any missile in game, and in any flight simulator I have been playing with missiles.

 

So it would mean that absolutely everyone is wrong on this aspect.

The AAM angle will depend on the relative horizontal distance between the shooter and the target, the RDI has 60* elevation capability, 120X120* arcs according to the manual, on the throttle, there is a radar antena up/down wheel perhaps it is covering the 60* down, I don't know yet.

As for the evasive in question, it works vs missiles which are already in their (simulated) terminal phase, out of maneuvering energy.

DCS players do that but find the S530D harder to avoid because of its speed, in the real world, your AAM will need 4 times the amount of G of the target to hit it with a 90% PK, 36 G is well within some of this gen of AAMs, today, it's 50 G but the S530D is given for 30 G by some sources (I'll be looking further into it), top G values are with their motor still ON.

The idea here is to make sure you have the target withing your NEZ, which is what energy will help increasing (IF simulated), so shot from a closer horizontal range from higher at a steeper angle and your target will have a harder time evading, I already envisioned the scenario, the snap-down equivalent of the snap-up kill vs a target 30.000 ft above is perfectly possible.

There is no problem with this equation, it's the same for all corps, including low drag/high-speed AAMs which are designed to reach speeds of M 5.0.

If you shoot the S530D in the same situation it will reach even higher levels of energy than a smaller/lighter AAM with a lower Max speed/energy, it's designed to do just that.

I'm not putting tactics forward, simply highlighting what I already know from aerodynamic and weapon cursus, AAMs gain range in snap-down flight profiles, that's a fact, how much is a matter of weight and aerodynamics.

Now I've been trying to find some doc on the Super-530 D, but it is really hard to find anything useful from a viable source online, since it's launching platform is still is in service in some countries, same with details about the firing envelop of the much older Mirage III.

So I do not know if this one is valid but it gives the range of the D variant for 50 km.

Note that those who do simulation even for DCS have to go through the process of researching documentation the way I do, I could even go to the local library to have access to a volume of Jane's Weapon Systems.

It could be possible to find data which have been retrieved from the public domain because they became classified later or because of copyright, 75% of doc are not available online for this only reason.

It's the simulations which are wrong, not the players using them, developers rely on data that many times, they have no access to:

http://media.heatblur.se/AIM-54.pdf

Look at the Vertical Launch on this one:

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf

You don't gain much if any in shoot down.

But in shoot up from sea level, your missile going up will have increased range because of lower air density.

Look at the Vertical Launch on this one:

 

http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/AIM-7F_Sparrow_III_SMC_-_January_1977.pdf

 

You don't gain much if any in shoot down.

But in shoot up from sea level, your missile going up will have increased range because of lower air density.

That's a false assumption; in your graphs, a longer distance is achieved in snap-down mode than in snap-up, from 40.000 ft at M 2.0, to Sea Level, the difference is 9.5 nm at 80000 ft, and 3 nm at <> 87.000 ft when the snap-down AAM has hit SL at 20 nm.

So despite being launched in much less dense air from 40.000 ft with headroom of <> 7000 ft, your AIM-7 only consistently reaches inferior range when launched snap-up than snap-down, if the vertical distances had been equal for both launches, it would have been the same story.

When going up from SL to 40000 ft, the amount of extra drag due to air density would be the same than in snap-down from the same altitude to SL, with 1.g gravity added to it, so in every case, gravity wins and the range achieved from SL show just this, the AAM has a <> 40.000 ft snap-up capability but never achieves the same range than in snap-down from 40.000 ft to SL.

Below 40.000 ft launch altitude, the graph also shows an increased range, the Maximum range obtained in snap-down from 40.000 to 30.000 ft, about 2.5 nm for only 10.000 ft.

As for NASA report, it couldn't be can't be clearer, same results in favor of snap-down from 6000 ft with the explanation about the effects of gravity on the missile.

The Analysis of a Generic Air-to-Air Missile Simulation Model.

NASA Technical Memorandum 109057

https://i.postimg.cc/PJncLzkR/NASA-AAM-Range.png[/img]"]

There exist a larger concentration of hits in the lower portion of the slice due to the effects of gravity on the missile.

From 40.000 ft you'll have full acceleration to top speed plus kinetic energy, which is not negligible...

Something else, what I was saying about their respective aerodynamic design just shows very well in the AAMs data, range vs speed.

The AIM-7 never go above M 4.0, from 40.000 ft launch altitude/Mach 2.0 launch speed, with a maximum launch velocity of M 2.6 and target altitude of 90.000 ft for the F variant, clearly tailored for the F-15 (First flight 1972).

As for the range, as I also was pointing out, they are given in MaxAero at 40.000 ft, not the same as that of S520D Operational ranges.

Quote: NASA.

Drag depends on the density of the air, the square of the velocity, the air's viscosity and compressibility, the size and shape of the body, and the body's inclination to the flow. In general, the dependence on body shape, inclination, air viscosity, and compressibility is very complex.

Air density is only ONE out of five parameters, assuming you compute for level flight, in the case of low drag AAMs designed to fly at M 5.0, drag is comparatively negligible if you look at aircraft, even an M 5.0++ X-15.

Ok, throw your numbers then, what range do you expect with what launching parameters for Super 530D ?

But your Nasa slide is for a very different missile with much shorter range.

There is no meaningful range gain excepted in almost vertical dive.

And keep in mind these are launching ranges, not missile travel range.

Ok, throw your numbers then, what range do you expect with what launching parameters for Super 530D ?

 

But your Nasa slide is for a very different missile with much shorter range.

There is no meaningful range gain excepted in almost vertical dive.

And keep in mind these are launching ranges, not missile travel range.

I just don't, but with the right tools, it's relatively easy to figure closely enough, you can download them from NASA website.

First I do not have all the data in hand, at least the Coefficient of Drag, I just have the theory on aerodynamic formulas.

Then as I just pointed out, there are other ways to figure out Max Aero range, like consulting a good source in a library, which you can't do online unless you pay for the copyright.

The NASA slide doesn't differ that much from the rest, the principle remains the same, if anything, the S530D would reach an even longer range by virtue of its higher speed and energy, I haven't heard of an AIM-9 doing Mach 4.5/5.0 yet.

What is meaningful in their slide is the number of kills and the reason given for that, the effect of gravity on the AAM, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it's due to a superior energy = range.

Energy is what AAMs are all about, the more they got, the faster they go and/or further they do their job at intercepting a target and the more they are able to maneuver to get the kill.

If you have energy and can maneuver at the point of intercept from a straight line, it's Maximum Launch Range, without this energy to maneuver it's Max Aerodynamic Range and you won't hit the target but the AAM can glide for quite some miles...

The ranges given for the AIM-7 are for MaxAero at 40.000 ft.

In the case of the S530D it's clearly not the case, info goes from "Operational" range which is the rough equivalent of the Max Launch Range, to simply "range".

What is puzzling is that there is no noticeable difference between its performances while intercepting a target 30.000 ft above it, being M 5.0 capable and the snap-down performances.

One source gave it for 50 km, other 40, it just doesn't add up and it simply shows that there is a lack of data on this AAM, not the first time, developers have the same issue with the AIM-120.

So if we do a proper research work, we can help, which is what I'm trying to do, I'm not here to undermine their work it's already really good with what they've got.

There are different things which can limit the full use of kinetic performances.

For instance, on AIM-7F above, Vs 2m² RCS target, they can't lock the missile before 22Nm.

And we have to make the difference between firing range and interception range.

The Super 530D has a self destruction timer at 45s.

The best data I have is that:

https://www.3af.fr/sites/default/files/comaero_03.r.carpentier_missiles_tactiques.pdf

Le Super 530 D est la version adaptée au Mirage 2000 équipé d’un radar de bord pulse doppler (nommé RDI, radar doppler à impulsion). Les principales différences de caractéristiques par rapport au F sont les suivantes :

- autodirecteur EMD semi-actif doppler (cf. chapitre 8, EMD), avec la technologie numérique de 1980 (microprocesseur pour la gestion) ; portée de l’AD nettement augmentée : 50 km ; très grande résistance aux contremesures modernes ;

- pilote calculateur partiellement numérisé ;

- véhicule plus performant : masse et longueur augmentées (+ 30 kg et + 265 mm), propulseur d’impulsion totale supérieure de 16 %, avec une enveloppe composite SEP ;

- performances : vitesse maximale de Mach 5 ; dénivelée possible accrue, permettant l’attaque de cibles à 24 000 m ; altitude minimale des cibles de 60 m ; distance de tir maximale de 50 km, avec une distance d’interception de 35 km.

- semi-active Doppler EMD homing device (see Chapter 8, EMD), with 1980 digital technology (microprocessor for management); significantly increased range of the AD: 50 km; very high resistance to modern countermeasures ;

- partially digitalized computer driver;

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

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

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

In this case the maximum lock range of the target is 27Nm, but the target's RCS isn't specified.

The lanch parameters aren't specified either, but for sure this is high performance firing (high altitude & supersonic).

Obviously, this data point isn't enough to cover the whole firing envelope.

In my previous test at M1.6/ FL350, the missile reached 20.5Nm/ 38km. So we are pretty close...