S530 Range

[LFCChameleon_Silk]

50 seconds or not you should still be looking at the performance up high as well as low, as it is already, the difference between a heads on 10k launch going mach 1 and a head on 40k launch going mach 1 is quite a big difference.

[IASGATG]

from what I understand the 530D performs better at higher altitudes and 10k is kinda low, so if your getting huge boost at low altitudes better check the missile mod at 40k launch and make sure the thing isn't going 150km :P

 

All missiles perform better at higher altitude and worse at lower altitude. It's the nature of aerodynamics. This missile is hitting about 36km at the moment at 40kft at a Mach 1 launch. It's hitting about 12km at 10kft.

[LFCChameleon_Silk]

I must fight the urge to go no *bleep* sherlock. I don't know if you intentionally tried to rub me the wrong way but pah-lease spare me the A-B-C's been doing this long enough to know how to turn my radar on if you understand what I mean by that...

 

also you tested at exactly mach 1?, you got all bases covered I guess, if I requested data for 1.356 mach would you have that on tap in 15 minutes too? :huh:

 

was just saying check 40k launch to make sure its in line, you were originally only showing data from 10k launch.

 

EDIT: not meaning to sound so harsh, better grab a coffee.

Edited December 30, 2015 by =LFC=Chameleon_Silk

[IASGATG]

I've shown data from 40kft previously. Here is with my modification at 40kft. It self destructs at 55s after launch (I imagine to simulate battery life or something similar).

 

40kft M1.3

 

[RuskyV]

It think this whole forum topic just proves how hard of a time ED has when they come to providing a missile that performs correctly at all altitudes to suit everyones expectations, but in all fairness you will never get a truly accurate measurement by the numbers when there are still many environmental variables that need to be taken into account ie altitude temperature and speed of the launch vehicle ect ect.

 

I do believe in supplying data that can generally point out where there might be issues though, and even though the tests i did were at 15kft (chosen just get some rough middle ground figures for altitude) to just see if there was a trend with the other test that have already been carried out.

 

I think we're all on the same page but are splitting hairs over the figures, trying to get real life statistics into the missile behaviour is obviously very tedious and long winded. but im not so worried what the actual programed figures are for any given missile as long as they get close to what the expected performance is when i pull the virtual trigger.

 

If they need to make changes to the internal performance that's not correct to the real performance i don't particularly care when the missile in practice works as it should.

 

if IASGATG's test mod works in practice i don't particularly care how his internal figures look compared to the wiki stats if it gets results.

 

You cant round down mother nature to the nearest decimal point.

[LFCChameleon_Silk]

good work IASGATG

 

and its nice that there is a missile mod too, nothing wrong with choice.

[IASGATG]

It think this whole forum topic just proves how hard of a time ED has when they come to providing a missile that performs correctly at all altitudes to suit everyones expectations, but in all fairness you will never get a truly accurate measurement by the numbers when there are still many environmental variables that need to be taken into account ie altitude temperature and speed of the launch vehicle ect ect.

 

I disagree with this statement. The code looks like ED took the AIM-7 code, increased it by a tiny amount because "Well it's basically an AIM-7 but bigger" and then increased the area drag until it hits whatever arbitrary "Max Range" meaning.

 

This means that they're both happy with the Super 530 and the AIM-7.

[Para_Bellum]

I agree. I simply can't believe the 530 (and the Magic II)as we currently have it is the best ED can do. The extreme loss in velocity just doesn't see to make a lot of sense compared to other missiles. I'd hazard the guess that the schedule for releasing the Mirage with somewhat working weapons was pretty tight and this was the best they could do in limited time.

[sedenion]

I disagree with this statement. The code looks like ED took the AIM-7 code, increased it by a tiny amount because "Well it's basically an AIM-7 but bigger" and then increased the area drag until it hits whatever arbitrary "Max Range" meaning.

 

We don't have much data about 530D, so i can understand they use the AIM-7 as basis... However, AIM-7 and 530D have obviously totally different design, aerodynamicaly (that is obvious) but also in behavior i think.

 

To understand the 530D i think we have to go back in history with the R530. Here we have a text, with some interesting information (but not much technical):

 

Facing the MiG 25, Israeli Phantom fighters are strong destitute, unable to intercept with the US missile air-air Sparrow technically designed to intercept targets moving rather low level. Western armies react and launch a new generation more efficient air to air interception missiles. While US Sparrow will be modernized, Europe, Matra confirm its number one spot in the field of air-air, with the family Super 530.

 

Super 530F

The French defense minister, Michel Debré, is affected by the opportunity for Soviet MiG 25 to violate the French airspace without impunity. The result is the launch of the Super 530F, optimized for high altitude interception, with a doubled reach and climb up capability.

 

Super 530D

The development of the Mirage 2000's Doppler radar Pulse (RDI) technology to shoot an air-air missiles down, will cause the appearance of a variant of the Super 530. This new version will add to the great climb up capability of the Super 530F a new ability to draw down on targets flying at very low altitude. The missile's flight envelope will be opened considerably, ranging from 60 to 24,000 meters. The missile is equipped with a new Doppler seeker and increased range using an increased pulse propellant.

 

http://www.ttu.fr/wp-content/uploads/saga3.pdf

 

(PDF page 10-15 [in fact 98-100])

Edited December 31, 2015 by sedenion

[BaconSarnie]

Thats about the 530F though, which came later then the D we have.

[sedenion]

Thats about the 530F though, which came later then the D we have.

 

The last paragraph (of the quote) is about the 530D variant

[nomdeplume]

Thats about the 530F though, which came later then the D we have.

The F came before the D; F introduced in 1979, D 1988.

[BaconSarnie]

I stand corrected, I went off the natural assumption that F would follow later, thinking they were done alphabetically.

This is not the case, your dates are correct, F did indeed precede the D

So the D shoud indeed perform much better than it does, well thats my take from reading what Sedendion posted.

Edited December 31, 2015 by BaconSarnie

[sedenion]

Yes, history is: R530 => Super 530F => Super 530D (=> MICA) The "D" Stand for "Doppler"

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Super_530-plan.png/275px-Super_530-plan.png

[jojo]

F for Mirage F1

[sedenion]

I found a very interesting source about Super 530D (and other variants) which also compare it with the AIM-7 development history...

 

Lets go (hard translation, in french in the text):

 

The Super 530D is the version adapted to the Mirage 2000 equiped with the doppler pulse radar (named RDI, Radar Doppler à Impulsion). The main characteristics differences compared to the F are following:

- EMD semi-actif doppler seeker with the numerical technology of 1980 (microprocessor for management); Seeker range greatly increased: 50Km; Very high resistance to modern countermeasures.

- Driver computer partially numerised

- More efficient vehicle: Masse and length increased ( + 30 kg and +265 mm), total pulse propellant 16% superior, with an composite SEP shell

- Performances: Maximum speed of Mach 5; increased climb capability, allowing attack targets at 24 000 m; minimum target altitude 60m; maximum fire distance of 50km, with an interception distance of 35km.

 

For the era, this missile was "The Must" in performances point of view. Launched in development in 1977, it was put into operation in 1987. [...]

 

On its side, the american third generation is made of 7F and 7M versions of the Sparrow. The vehicle was enhanced; but above all it is the seeker that needed a modernisation. The reliability of the 7E Sparrow version used during Vietnam conflict was considered by american senate reports as unacceptable. The seeker stayed at "tubular" technology.

 

The 7M version was developped with a monopulse seeker and numerical technology and put into operation in 1983 ; its performances was close to the Super 530D's ones.

 

[...]

 

The Super 530D is a missile that have the technology of the late 70's, with an doppler eletrcomagnetic seeker, a proxymity fuse correlated, a composite propellant...; its masse is 275 kg and its range is 50 km. 1000 missiles was producted (590 for France), with a mensual cadence of 10, for an average price of 4.2 Million of Francs [NDT: ~ 640 000 € ]. The cost of the Super 530D developpement (A new missile with the firt french doppler seeker, the numerisation and a new propellant) was 1300 Million of Francs [NDT: ~ 200 000 000 €].

 

For the american competitor, 7F and 7M Sparrow, the technology is simpler; the production was of 26 000 copies, after 35 000 copies produced for previous version. The average price was $200 000. The competition was hard for french, except political selling.

French version:

 

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 de1980 (microprocesseur pour la gestion) ; portée de l’AD nettement augmentée : 50 km ; très grande résistance aux contre-mesures 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.

 

Pour l’époque, ce missile était « le must » du point de vue des performances.

Lancé en développement en 1977, il fut mis en service en 1987.

 

De son côté, la troisième génération américaine est constituée par les versions 7 F et 7 M du Sparrow. Le véhicule a été amélioré ; mais c’est surtout l’AD qui nécessitait une modernisation. La fiabilité de la version Sparrow 7 E utilisée durant le conflit au Vietnam était considérée par les rapports au Sénat américain comme inacceptable ; l’AD était resté à la technologie « tube »

 

La version 7 M fut développée avec un autodirecteur monopulse et une technologie numérique et mise en service en 1983 ; ses performances étaient proches de celles du Super 530D

 

[...]

 

Le Super 530 D est un missile ayant la technologie de la fin des années 1970, avec un AD électromagnétique doppler, une fusée de proximité à corrélation, un propulseur composite... ; sa masse est de 275 kg et sa portée est de 50 km. 1 000 missiles ont été produits (590 pour la France), avec une cadence mensuelle de 10, pour un prix moyen de 4,2 MF (Réf. A et D). Le coût de développement du Super 530 D (un nouveau missile avec le premier AD doppler français, la numérisation et un nouveau propulseur) fut de 1 300 MF (Réf. B).

 

Pour le concurrent américain, Sparrow 7 F et 7 M, la technologie est plus simple ; la production fut de 26 000 exemplaires, après 35 000 exemplaires produits pour les versions antérieures. Le prix moyen était de 200 000 $. La compétition était difficile pour les Français, hors vente politique.

[ame=http://www.eurosae.com/pages/comaero/R_Carpentier_Missiles_tactiques.pdf]www.eurosae.com/pages/comaero/R_Carpentier_Missiles_tactiques.pdf[/ame]
Edited December 31, 2015 by sedenion

[Brisse]

Nice. Good stuff sedenion. I think particularily this line proves it should have longer legs than current DCS implementation:

 

maximum fire distance of 50km, with an interception distance of 35km

[iborg]

Nice find !

[sedenion]

In fact, if we read between the lines, the text say that the Super 530D is slightly superior to the AIM-7M, maybe in all aspects... but well... no factual data to compare.

Edited December 31, 2015 by sedenion

[OxideMako]

In fact, if we read between the lines, the text say that the Super 530D is slightly superior to the AIM-7M, maybe in all aspects... but well... no factual data to compare.

Sounds more like the 530D has a better seeker then the AIM7F/M and similar flight performance, but is more expensive per missile leading to less users.

[RuskyV]

In fact, if we read between the lines, the text say that the Super 530D is slightly superior to the AIM-7M, maybe in all aspects... but well... no factual data to compare.

 

Thats pretty much how i read it.. I think there needs to be a whole new missile developed based on its own data as it's clear that data use from other missiles to get close to the performance is the wrong way to going about.

 

In a previous post i mentioned that i didn't mind if the missile data was based of something else and made to perform close to its real life counterpart. I can see that this approach is simply not going to work and that we need a new missile developed.

 

I can understand why they (ED) have done it this way given the time constraints but it can't be left as a long term solution. Developers creating future aircraft from other nations need to have a missile that functions independently from anything else we have so that it can compliment the hard work 3rd party developers put into bringing us new aircraft and their respective systems modeling.

[GGTharos]

The AIM-7MH (the missile modeled in game) is likely on-par with the 530 in terms of electronics (at least, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference without a lot more details).

 

I would expect the 530 to fly a bit further though - Raero for 7F/M is 53nm at 40k with M1.4, co-alt-co-speed-no-maneuver head-on engagement.

That's almost 100km.

[sedenion]

Sounds more like the 530D has a better seeker then the AIM7F/M and similar flight performance.

 

You forgot the Mach 5 maximum speed... AIM-7 have a max of Mach 4... i think that mean something about flight performance... What exactly, hard to say, but we know the 530D was designed for less drag at >mach speed...

 

I would say that when french engineer said "50 km range", it is realy "50 km range", and not like the claimed "70 km" reached by the AIM-7M with theorical optimum inertia conditions... But here this is highly speculative of my part, and totally based on intuition...

[GGTharos]

You forgot the Mach 5 maximum speed... AIM-7 have a max of Mach 4...

 

Unless you look at graphs showing acceleration and launch conditions, these numbers mean nothing.

 

I would say that when french engineer said "50 km range", it is realy "50 km range",

 

... it really means nothing :) Precicely because you do NOT know what '50km range' really means. Do they really mean 'launch range' (the usual meaning) or missile's flight distance? More importantly, are there considerations that force you to use the missile at shorter ranges than you could otherwise? (Eg. AIM-7 has a range restriction based on target RCS)

 

and not like the claimed "70 km" reached by the AIM-7M with theorical optimum inertia conditions... But here this is highly speculative of my part, and totally based on intuition...

Try 100km, and that's straight out of USAF documentation.

[Brisse]

You forgot the Mach 5 maximum speed... AIM-7 have a max of Mach 4... i think that mean something about flight performance...

 

Yes, but do not forget that the AIM-7M has less thrust but for a significantly longer duration. The top speed isn't the only thing that matters. The AIM-7M is able to stay at a high speed for a longer duration thanks to the slower burning rocket stages. The Super 530D becomes a glider after ten seconds. The AIM-7M will keep burning for 5 more seconds and most likely it will overtake the Super 530D within that time or shortly thereafter.