# SD-10 vs AIM-120 (Latest versions)



## MZUBAIR

AIM-120







SD-10A

Reactions: Like Like:
18


----------



## MZUBAIR

Designs are quite similar...The PL-12 is outwardly very similar to the US-designed AIM-120 AMRAAM. The two share a comparable aerodynamic configuration, *although the PL-12 is a little longer, wider and heavier than the AMRAAM* ....

*According to Chinese claims, PL-12 is more capable than the American AIM-120 A/B, but slightly inferior than the AIM-120C.*


lets discuss abt features, Capabilities and performance

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## MZUBAIR

Aviation News Sina officially opened today in Zhuhai Air Show, Zhuhai air show in this, a variety of airborne weapons made appearances for the enriched air show. 

SD10 air missiles 

this air show was finally revealed SD10 (PL12)-type mid-range air to air missile data. SD10 Its total length is about missile 3934mm, the projectile diameter 203mm, fighting the whole weight 199kg (Chinese version reported as 198kg) wingspan range of 52mm, the maximum high range shot 0-21km, *maximum flight distance is more than 70km.* Guidance technology used 3A + mode: Multi-frequency radio data link + + DIN radar control guidance. 

*up to weather, all in all areas, automatic (after launching) the automatic attack mode. Its overall performance is still said to close US-made &#8220;AIM120 medium-range air to air missiles,&#8221; but in the precision-guided, against interference or slightly inferior to the other side the next. *

but at the moment PL12/SD10 has been identified as a new generation of standardization as the main force of the Chinese Air Force air strikes against missile weapons, and it will replace some of the existing missile system. Pakistan Air Force at the same time showcase the &#8220;Fierce Dragon&#8221; is also equipped with a side SD10 missiles, according to Pakistani military, said: &#8220;This is a sea-fight&#8221; side. 

Source

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MZUBAIR

Unit Cost.
AIM-120
$300-$400,000 for 120C variants,


SD-10
$84,000 USD

SD-10 is cheaper then AIM-120

Both have 4 MACH speed

Surface launched version

Both have surface launch versions as SAM

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chogy

We can only compare the most basic published data. What is most important in both of these is going to be classified.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gubbi

Chogy said:


> We can only compare the most basic published data. What is most important in both of these is going to be classified.



If it isnt asking for too much, what sort of parameters are classified? If the info that many are exposed to during arms fairs or exhibitions isnt enough to pitch for sales, then manufacturers certainly have to unveil these classified parameters to potential customers. Does classified info leak from such sources or can such info be 'abused' buy the potential customer for their own advantage?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A1Kaid

MZUBAIR said:


> Designs are quite similar...The PL-12 is outwardly very similar to the US-designed AIM-120 AMRAAM. The two share a comparable aerodynamic configuration, *although the PL-12 is a little longer, wider and heavier than the AMRAAM* ....
> 
> *According to Chinese claims, PL-12 is more capable than the American AIM-120 A/B, but slightly inferior than the AIM-120C.*
> 
> 
> lets discuss abt features, Capabilities and performance



Any good source claiming the Chinese claim PL-12 is "more capable" (superior) to the AIM-120A? From what I've read the two missiles are similar in performance, if however the PL-12 is superior to the AIM-120A it's probably in maneuverability.


----------



## rsingh

SD-10 No Combat experience.


----------



## Donatello

rsingh said:


> SD-10 No Combat experience.



How much experience does the IAF have with the R-77s on their SU30s or R-77s in general.


Don't spam with one liners....

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## rsingh

^^^^
Must have seen some action under Russians.


----------



## Chogy

gubbi said:


> If it isnt asking for too much, what sort of parameters are classified? If the info that many are exposed to during arms fairs or exhibitions isnt enough to pitch for sales, then manufacturers certainly have to unveil these classified parameters to potential customers. Does classified info leak from such sources or can such info be 'abused' buy the potential customer for their own advantage?



We had a pretty comprehensive discussion on this subject, but I forgot the thread... sorry. Basically, the classified portions of any weapons system deals with the nuts and bolts of the operation. Things like true kinematic capabilities. Fuzing... how does it work, what is the real (true) effective radius of the warhead? How does the missile resist ECM, IRCM? Actual minimum and maximum effective ranges, not figures from a brochure. Frequencies and methods of active homing guidance. Off-boresight capabilities. Hidden capabilities that only the manufacturer and operators are privvy to.

The world of military hardware is loaded with secret/classified capabilities that no one here knows about, or if they do, they will certainly not say anything about them.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## BATMAN

Chogy said:


> We can only compare the most basic published data. What is most important in both of these is going to be classified.



from operator point of view he only see performance, what components goes inside to acheive is good to know but dosn't matter if kept classified.

PAF will have both AIM-120C and SD-10A and their comparitive performace will be evelauated closely.

SD-10 is more heavy than AIM-120C, while PAF does not have the latest AIM-120D.

In war senario range will never be an issue but its immunity to jamming must be increased, which i guess will be improved without problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nightcrawler

MZUBAIR said:


> Designs are quite similar...The PL-12 is outwardly very similar to the US-designed AIM-120 AMRAAM.



Dont be so hasty sir; closer look at the two missiles reveal that they have different tail planforms**...SD-10 planform is more kinked (has more edges) than the AIM-120. This add to a *greater lift & reduces drag as well.*

**


> In aviation, a planform is the shape and layout of a fixed-wing aircraft's fuselage and wing.












In general the vortex(s) thus produced at the edges interact downstream in such a way so as to produce 'vortex core' to increase lift/reduce drag

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## satishkumarcsc

Chogy said:


> We had a pretty comprehensive discussion on this subject, but I forgot the thread... sorry. Basically, the classified portions of any weapons system deals with the nuts and bolts of the operation. Things like true kinematic capabilities. Fuzing... how does it work, what is the real (true) effective radius of the warhead? How does the missile resist ECM, IRCM? Actual minimum and maximum effective ranges, not figures from a brochure. Frequencies and methods of active homing guidance. Off-boresight capabilities. Hidden capabilities that only the manufacturer and operators are privvy to.
> 
> The world of military hardware is loaded with secret/classified capabilities that no one here knows about, or if they do, they will certainly not say anything about them.



Sir,
How can we compare the two missiles with basic information like size, shape and outward looks when most of the inside electronics and the operational tactics, seeker range and all are classified?...I think this might most probably turn into a pissing contest as AIM 120 is a tested and proven missile compared to the AIM 120 for which a few parameters are available albeit for the A?B versions....The C-5, C-7 and D versions have almost nothing in common other than the outer shell compared to A/B versions. And we also dont know the performance parameters of SD 10 and the Tactics for BVR combat evolved by the respective air forces for the SD 10. 

I find it very difficult even to start an argument on this...kindly help me out.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

satishkumarcsc said:


> Sir,
> How can we compare the two missiles with basic information like size, shape and outward looks when most of the inside electronics and the operational tactics, seeker range and all are classified?...I think this might most probably turn into a pissing contest as AIM 120 is a tested and proven missile compared to the AIM 120 for which a few parameters are available albeit for the A?B versions....The C-5, C-7 and D versions have almost nothing in common other than the outer shell compared to A/B versions. And we also dont know the performance parameters of SD 10 and the Tactics for BVR combat evolved by the respective air forces for the SD 10.
> 
> I find it very difficult even to start an argument on this...kindly help me out.



Hi,

I believe that Chogy made it very clear in his post what it is all about---over here we put a post on the board---and all the kids dig up the specs from different web-sites----and strut around their posts as they have found their own new god.

Truthfully---there is hardly any comparison between an SD 10 and an AIM 120---.

SD 10 is a first true bvr by the chinese---aim 120 has a pedigree a sheet long---. It is not saying bad about the missile---but seems like it is becoming a habbit of my pak colleagues of MAKING A MONSTER OUT OF A MONKEY.

SD 10 will indeed grow up to become an aim 120 in maybe the next 10 years---but today---it has to endure many a growing pains that only a missile can bear.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## mughaljee

our PAF is satisfied with its range ?


----------



## MastanKhan

mughaljee said:


> our PAF is satisfied with its range ?



Hi Mughaljee,

If you are satisfied---YOU ARE DEAD----sir----paf has no other choice---not too many options left.

Not saying that Sd 10 is a bad missile---.


----------



## silent hawk

mughaljee said:


> our PAF is satisfied with its range ?



Yes it is. The range of the missile is more than 100 Km which is good enough. The SD-10 is China's main BVR missile. Even thier best aircraft (J-10) uses this missile. Although the missile is not as battle proven as the AIM 120, yet Pakistan in the SD-10 now has the same BVR missile which China is using to defend its airspace.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Well its wonderful that we will have option to install both on our F16 and JF17 thunder platform 

SD-10 look fantastic Air to Air option for our fighters - 

Also its good that we have some inventory for our F16 as well as second option

But boy oh boy how beautiful it will look when we get the J10b 36 planes from china loaded with these missiles and lots of other goods

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakSher

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> 
> Truthfully---there is hardly any comparison between an SD 10 and an AIM 120---.
> 
> SD 10 is a first true bvr by the chinese---aim 120 has a pedigree a sheet long---. It is not saying bad about the missile---but seems like it is becoming a habbit of my pak colleagues of MAKING A MONSTER OUT OF A MONKEY.
> 
> SD 10 will indeed grow up to become an aim 120 in maybe the next 10 years---but today---it has to endure many a growing pains that only a missile can bear.



Yes, partly true. But remember the old saying "One in the hand is better then two in the bush". Western Arms suppliers have not been a reliable source of weapons procurement and SD-10 seems to be a stable and reliable solution for the short,medium and long term.


----------



## Donatello

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> I believe that Chogy made it very clear in his post what it is all about---over here we put a post on the board---and all the kids dig up the specs from different web-sites----and strut around their posts as they have found their own new god.
> 
> Truthfully---there is hardly any comparison between an SD 10 and an AIM 120---.
> 
> SD 10 is a first true bvr by the chinese---aim 120 has a pedigree a sheet long---. It is not saying bad about the missile---but seems like it is becoming a habbit of my pak colleagues of MAKING A MONSTER OUT OF A MONKEY.
> 
> SD 10 will indeed grow up to become an aim 120 in maybe the next 10 years---but today---it has to endure many a growing pains that only a missile can bear.





Not really,

if they get their hands on western design and specs then they can pretty much catch up.

I am not suggesting it will come from the PAF stocks though, but given the number of Chinese working in the USA it is possible.


China has a long history of taking other stuff, MIG fighter aircraft being one of them, and making them more useful.

As long as SD-10 serves the purpose for a BVR, it should be fine.

...and no one is making monster out of a monkey. If you have specs/details to prove otherwise, other than websites, than that should be useful.

Everyone here is to learn.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chogy

I didn't mean to be jingoistic, or slam the Chinese missile. That would be foolish. One must avoid the temptation to either over, OR under-estimate a weapon.

My main point was that "System X" vs. "System Y" debates, while fun, rarely tell the whole story. And from an operator standpoint, yes indeed, operators learn a lot about a missile. They don't go in on a transistor level, but classified strengths, weaknesses, and operating parameters, are all taught to pilots. It helps them use them to better effect, and to avoid situations (or select a different missile) when a particular environment might not be best.

A very simple example - I'm looking down on a target flying low and fast over a very hot and rocky desert terrain. AIM-9L or AIM-120? Pick the AIM-120, as the extreme background can interfere with IR tracking.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## rockstarIN

^^Very true.

BVR Missiles range, other parameters will vary in different situations, altitude & back ground. All would like to fire it in their own identical situations. BVR missile even air crafts will perform differently in different conditions.

Nice to see IAF testing its proposed war birds in banglore(humid), Rajastan(Desert) & Leh(high altitude)


----------



## rockstarIN

@Chogy, can you share the tail chase range of AIM in its favourable altitude?


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

What exactly makes the AIM better then SD-10 ??

Is it better hit &#37; or just over all performance and success ration 

AIM really has not been tested against moderen fighters mostly against out dated planes with generational gap of 15 years on most kills no ??? 

But SD-10 is china's recent work integrating newer technologies and tracking so even if these function 89% of the AIM capacity 

Its pretty close that is still almost a certain kill rate unless pilot makes emergency actions to prevent being dead duck

AIM on paper has been touted as the most successful missiles with solid success ratios but technology is not property of American companies China can and has also build its own missile ...

But for Pakistan if we had CLASSIFIED distance on SD-10 Missiles that is a heck big advantage in battle scenarios vs AIM missiles that ppl know what their range is 

SD-10 just gives us that unpredictability and just a big boost in our defences -


----------



## wali87

Could someone please state and compare the guidance systems these two missiles use..?


----------



## MastanKhan

penumbra said:


> Not really,
> 
> if they get their hands on western design and specs then they can pretty much catch up.
> 
> I am not suggesting it will come from the PAF stocks though, but given the number of Chinese working in the USA it is possible.
> 
> 
> China has a long history of taking other stuff, MIG fighter aircraft being one of them, and making them more useful.
> 
> As long as SD-10 serves the purpose for a BVR, it should be fine.
> 
> ...and no one is making monster out of a monkey. If you have specs/details to prove otherwise, other than websites, than that should be useful.
> 
> Everyone here is to learn.



Sir,

You make it sound too simple---which makes it sound fake----. Please add some level of difficulty to bring some reality to the issue---add some sweat and blood.


----------



## gambit

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> What exactly makes the AIM better then SD-10 ??
> 
> Is it better hit % or just over all performance and success ration
> 
> *AIM really has not been tested against moderen fighters mostly against out dated planes with generational gap of 15 years on most kills no ??? *
> 
> But SD-10 is china's recent work integrating newer technologies and tracking so even if these function 89% of the AIM capacity
> 
> Its pretty close that is still almost a certain kill rate unless pilot makes emergency actions to prevent being dead duck
> 
> AIM on paper has been touted as the most successful missiles with solid success ratios but technology is not property of American companies China can and has also build its own missile ...
> 
> But for Pakistan if we had CLASSIFIED distance on SD-10 Missiles that is a heck big advantage in battle scenarios vs AIM missiles that ppl know what their range is
> 
> SD-10 just gives us that unpredictability and just a big boost in our defences -


You have no business in this kind of technical discussions with the nonsense above. The goal of every military is to overwhelm an adversary in every arena of warfare and it does not matter how 'modern' or 'outdated' he may be.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## fatman17

the sd-10 is = to or comparable to earlier model aim-120a/b models which is not a bad thing - PAF will also get the newer 120C5 models, however a C7 has been released and the 120D is in production.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

satishkumarcsc said:


> Sir,
> How can we compare the two missiles with basic information like size, shape and outward looks when most of the inside electronics and the operational tactics, seeker range and all are classified?


You can infer some information about the missile's technology just from external appearance.

For example...

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Missile Control Systems


> *Tail control* is probably the most commonly used form of missile control, particularly for longer range air-to-air missiles like AMRAAM and surface-to-air missiles like Patriot and Roland.
> 
> *Canard control* is also quite commonly used, especially on short-range air-to-air missiles like AIM-9M Sidewinder.


Take a pen and consider the nib as the 'head' of a missile.

For 'tail control', you would move the end opposite of the nib to change the missile's heading and naturally its seeker direction.

For 'canard control', you would move the nib.

Which would impart the greatest g-force upon the seeker assembly in the missile's head?

The answer is 'canard control' because you are actually moving the head. So do you want to install moving parts like a small radar antenna that require not only precision controls but high torque servo motors to compensate for the g-force? May be you have no choice. But if you do have a choice, would it be better to install a sensor *TYPE* that have either no or very little moving parts? The alternative is an infrared sensor with a 'staring' array. Now you can whack that head in all three axes as you wish.

But the major problem with 'canard control' are vortices created by the moving canards that could affect flight controls behavior of the larger tail fins further back, so we have this...



> *A further subset of canard control missiles is the split canard. Split canards are a relatively new development* that has found application on the latest generation of short-range air-to-air missiles like Python 4 and the Russian AA-11. The term split canard refers to the fact that the missile has two sets of canards in close proximity, usually one immediately behind the other. *The first canard is fixed while the second set is movable.* The advantage of this arrangement is that the first set of canards generates strong, energetic vortices that increase the speed of the airflow over the second set of canards making them more effective. In addition, the vortices delay flow separation and allow the canards to reach higher angles of attack before stalling. This high angle of attack performance gives the missile much greater maneuverability compared to a missile with single canard control.


Note that the moveable canards must be close enough to the fixed canards in order to exploit those vortices.

Another problem associated with canard controls are large seeker error precisely because of the large movements created by the 'forward-of-center' aerodynamics. The compensation is usually software based, meaning the flight controls algorithms must be sufficiently sophisticated to deflect the fins with just the right degrees. Does that rule out 'bang-bang' guidance because 'bang-bang' guidance means exactly that -- to 'bang' or deflect the fin to its maximum travel at its maximum rate? Absolutely not. A sufficiently sophisticate guidance algorithms can 'bang' the fins as rapidly as needed, provided the mechanics such as motors or actuator rods can handle the commands and response stresses.

What I said above is not even %1 of the effort required to speculate about, let alone truly analyze, a missile based upon appearance alone. This is why whenever a new weapon system, be it a tank, an ICBM, or an air combat missile, is deployed by an adversary, it is necessary to take as many photos from as many aspect angles as possible in order to have a more informed speculation of its potential. That does not mean we will be correct all the time. The US grossly overestimated the MIG-25 in our speculation based upon its appearance. And one's own technological foundation influence said speculation -- if you do not know about vortices and how to exploit them, you would be puzzled by the split canard configuration.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## Bratva

Is SD-10 a Fire and Forget missile?


----------



## gowthamraj

Thanks gambit for your useful posts


----------



## azfar

mafiya said:


> Is SD-10 a Fire and Forget missile?



yes it is.


----------



## rockstarIN

azfar said:


> yes it is.




Fire-and-forget is a third-generation method of missile guidance. The military use the term for a type of missile which does not require further guidance after launch such as illumination of the target or wire guidance (TOW), and can hit its target without the launcher being in line-of-sight of the target.

In a true sense most of the BVRs are not fire and forget, all needed guidance in flight.

Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## silent hawk

mafiya said:


> Is SD-10 a Fire and Forget missile?



Yes it is the following paragraph from wikipedia explains the four engagement modes.

"The PL-12 (SD-10) has four engagement modes. To take the greatest advantage of its maximum range it will use a mix of command guidance (via a datalink) plus its own inertial guidance before entering the active radar terminal guidance phase. The missile can also be launched to a pre-selected point, using its strap-down inertial system, before switching on its own seeker for a terminal search. Over short ranges the missile can be launched in a 'fire-and-forget' mode using its own active seeker from the outset. Finally, the PL-12 has a 'home-on-jam' mode that allows it to passively track and engage an emitting target, without ever using its own active radar or a radar from the launch aircraft. This capability is the foundation on which the capability of anti-radiation missile is developed. The seeker is connected to a digital flight control system that uses signal processing techniques to track a target. The missile's warhead is linked to a laser proximity fuse."

Hope this helps

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 500

MZUBAIR said:


> Unit Cost.
> AIM-120
> $300-$400,000 for 120C variants,
> 
> 
> SD-10
> $84,000 USD
> 
> SD-10 is cheaper then AIM-120


AMRAAM costs over million:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SomeGuy

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> I believe that Chogy made it very clear in his post what it is all about---over here we put a post on the board---and all the kids dig up the specs from different web-sites----and strut around their posts as they have found their own new god.
> 
> Truthfully---there is hardly any comparison between an SD 10 and an AIM 120---.
> 
> SD 10 is a first true bvr by the chinese---aim 120 has a pedigree a sheet long---. It is not saying bad about the missile---but seems like it is becoming a habbit of my pak colleagues of MAKING A MONSTER OUT OF A MONKEY.
> 
> SD 10 will indeed grow up to become an aim 120 in maybe the next 10 years---but today---it has to endure many a growing pains that only a missile can bear.



I think you are overstating the effectiveness and combat record of AIM-120 in particular, and AMRAAMs in general.

Most Air-to-Air kills to date have been done with short range, heat seekers - 270+ kills by AIM-9 compared to the 9 confirmed kills (as of 2008 - according to Wiki) by AIM-120 (all against outdated Iraqi and Serbian MiGs).

Secondly, PL-12/SD-10 was first produced in 2002 - it is not a new product that has just come off the production lines, and so has already endured most of its growing pains.

In fact I doubt that there is going to be much more work done in improving the PL-12 since the time, research effort and money would be better spent on the rumoured longer range, ramjet powered "PL-13" or an Chinese equivalent of the proposed K-100 Novator.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## krash

SomeGuy said:


> I think you are overstating the effectiveness and combat record of AIM-120 in particular, and AMRAAMs in general.
> 
> Most Air-to-Air kills to date have been done with short range, heat seekers - 270+ kills by AIM-9 compared to the 9 confirmed kills (as of 2008 - according to Wiki) by AIM-120 *(all against outdated Iraqi and Serbian MiGs).*



wheres gambit?


----------



## rockstarIN

silent hawk said:


> Yes it is the following paragraph from wikipedia explains the four engagement modes.
> 
> "The PL-12 (SD-10) has four engagement modes. To take the greatest advantage of its maximum range it will use a mix of command guidance (via a datalink) plus its own inertial guidance before entering the active radar terminal guidance phase. The missile can also be launched to a pre-selected point, using its strap-down inertial system, before switching on its own seeker for a terminal search. Over short ranges the missile can be launched in a 'fire-and-forget' mode using its own active seeker from the outset. Finally, the PL-12 has a 'home-on-jam' mode that allows it to passively track and engage an emitting target, without ever using its own active radar or a radar from the launch aircraft. This capability is the foundation on which the capability of anti-radiation missile is developed. The seeker is connected to a digital flight control system that uses signal processing techniques to track a target. The missile's warhead is linked to a laser proximity fuse."
> 
> Hope this helps



It will work as a fire & forget in short range like R-73 or sidewinder, not as BVR.


----------



## Donatello

MastanKhan said:


> Sir,
> 
> You make it sound too simple---which makes it sound fake----. Please add some level of difficulty to bring some reality to the issue---add some sweat and blood.



No need to add sweat and blood.

Our armed forces are trained for that.


----------



## gambit

krash said:


> wheres gambit?


No need. Those who make that kind of comment do not know what they are talking about anyway.


----------



## MastanKhan

penumbra said:


> No need to add sweat and blood.
> 
> Our armed forces are trained for that.



Sir,

Clever answers will not get you any where---you need some substance in your diction.


----------



## MastanKhan

krash said:


> wheres gambit? isnt he going to run in
> &#37;^%$^% again?



Sir,

Gambit is a great asset on this board-----please have some respect when you address him.


And MODS---please kindly take charge---this kind of comments against such a member is un-acceptable. Thanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## TechLahore

krash said:


> wheres gambit?



Your post was edited to remove an unnecessarily offensive comment directed at a forum member.

Please learn to behave yourself if you would like to continue interacting here.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MZUBAIR

MastanKhan said:


> Hi Mughaljee,
> 
> If you are satisfied---YOU ARE DEAD----sir----paf has no other choice---not too many options left.
> 
> Not saying that Sd 10 is a bad missile---.



Sir, we have few dozen of *first choice* AIM-120 out of the deal of 500.
And more coming in few months.

I think 500 AIM-120 is the huge number's of BVR.
And the both AIM-120 (500) and SD-10 (few 100's) are enough to defend the country.
Dont u agree with me??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MZUBAIR

AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> What exactly makes the AIM better then SD-10 ??



From many areas\aspects it shows that AIM is batter then SD-10.


> Is it better hit % or just over all performance and success ration



Yes AIM hit performance is batter then SD-10 with its ACTIVE radar and built in inertial navigation system.
AIM is light in weight, agile and have super maneveuers.


> AIM really has not been tested against moderen fighters mostly against out dated planes with generational gap of 15 years on most kills no ???



Its tested ....thats y its also used in F22 Raptor 


> But SD-10 is china's recent work integrating newer technologies and tracking so even if these function *89%* of the AIM capacity



We cant meaure in %'s but yes SD-10 is closed ot AIM. But still lack in many aspects




> Its pretty close that is still almost a certain kill rate unless pilot makes emergency actions to prevent being dead duck
> 
> AIM on paper has been touted as the most successful missiles with solid success ratios but technology is not property of American companies China can and has also build its own missile ...
> 
> But for Pakistan if we had CLASSIFIED distance on SD-10 Missiles that is a heck big advantage in battle scenarios vs AIM missiles that ppl know what their range is
> 
> SD-10 just gives us that unpredictability and just a big boost in our defences -



U shld be happy that PAF have both the missiles

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chogy

To the gentleman who asked about tail-chase ranges... my experience with the AIM-120 is not recent, but even if I knew exact numbers, I wouldn't discuss them openly.

I can say that in general, tail-chase is the worst situation a missile must overcome, especially if the target is fast. And the range varies wildly with the target altitude. All A-A missile envelopes expand dramatically as the altitude increases. It all deals with air-drag, of course.

A good man-machine interface generates a visible solution on the radar or HUD by continually analyzing everything... target speed, aspect, altitude, your own speed, etc. You can see the envelope shrink or expand in real time, and it is displayed as tick marks next to the radar range scale. Pretty high-tech stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

MZUBAIR said:


> Sir, we have few dozen of *first choice* AIM-120 out of the deal of 500.
> And more coming in few months.
> 
> I think 500 AIM-120 is the huge number's of BVR.
> And the both AIM-120 (500) and SD-10 (few 100's) are enough to defend the country.
> Dont u agree with me??



Hi,

I absolutely agree with you----the combination of aim 120 and sd 10 is extremely potent.

Where the sd 10 be seeing its first true deployment---aim 120 has been doing that for decades----so age before beauty---. When we look at american weapons systems---the first thing that comes to mind is quality---reliability---and trust that it will do the job right. 

Americans are their worst critics and they are always on the go to mend things---not saying that the chinese are not taking a similiar path---but the aim 120 has gone through many a life cycles of development and changes---and for that reason it gets the highest ratings.

About the sd 10---we should stop making these big claims about the missile---has anybody ever heard the phrase----PROMISE LESS DELIVER MORE---. Over here people are promising more and when it comes to delivery---everyone start looking the other way.

At present---the chinese systems are delivering .60 to .70 to what an american system delivers---will they get better in time----yes they will---do we buy the chinese weapons out of choice---absolutely not---we buy them because they come without the fear of sanctions---that is all there is to it.

Otherwise we would be lookijng to the west all the time----that has always been our first priority.

I would say---AIM 120---zindabad----SD 10 paindabad---

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## krash

TechLahore said:


> Your post was edited to remove an unnecessarily offensive comment directed at a forum member.
> 
> Please learn to behave yourself if you would like to continue interacting here.



i do apologise for crossing the line but his earlier comment was itself a bit too harsh and that provoked my response........ apologize again sir gambit and everyone else but please try to cut some slack to all us noobs who are here only to learn from you and if you thrash us we are most likely never to gain anything from you. 

ps: if it means anything i did not intend that phrase in any offensive manner what so ever. Just used it as a general term and became aware of its inappropriateness after you pointed it out. My conotation was more of the sense of "angry shouting". But i do admit my mistake.

sincerely sorry


----------



## sathya

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*China's SD-10 claimed to be a dual-mode AAM
China's SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (AAM), as exhibited at Airshow China earlier in November, may be a considerably more capable weapon than was hitherto...
26-Nov-2010


----------



## silent hawk

sathya said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *China's SD-10 claimed to be a dual-mode AAM
> China's SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (AAM), as exhibited at Airshow China earlier in November, may be a considerably more capable weapon than was hitherto...
> 26-Nov-2010



The SD-10 is reported to have not two but four modes. 



> The PL-12 has four engagement modes. To take the greatest advantage of its maximum range it will use a mix of command guidance (via a datalink) plus its own inertial guidance before entering the active radar terminal guidance phase. The missile can also be launched to a pre-selected point, using its strap-down inertial system, before switching on its own seeker for a terminal search. Over short ranges the missile can be launched in a 'fire-and-forget' mode using its own active seeker from the outset. Finally, the PL-12 has a 'home-on-jam' mode that allows it to passively track and engage an emitting target, without ever using its own active radar or a radar from the launch aircraft


----------



## unicorn

*AIM-120 cutaway diagram*







*AIM-120A antenna assembly*






*AIM-120A ECU module, EU cardcage, processor board and IMU*

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## unicorn

*AMRAAN Specifications*







Length: 5.56 m (12 ft) 
Wingspan: 53.3 cm (21 in)
AIM-120C: 44.7 cm (17.6 in) 
Finspan 63.5 cm (25 in)
AIM-120C: 44.7 cm (17.6 in) 
Diameter: 17.8 cm (7 in) 
Weight: 157 kg (345 lb) 
Speed Mach: 4 
Range: 50-70 km (30-45 miles) 
Propulsion: Hercules/Aerojet solid-fueled rocket 
Warhead: 23 kg (50 lb) WDU-33/B blast-fragmentation
AIM-120C-5: WDU-41/B blast-fragmentation

*Guidance Section, Weapons Guidance Unit*
The Weapons Guidance Unit (WGU) consists of the radome, seeker, servo, transmitter-receiver, electronics unit, Inertial Reference Unit, Target Detection Device (TDD), the harnesses, and frame structure. All units except the TDD are contained within a sealed structure composed of the pyroceramic radome, titanium skin sections, and aluminum aft bulkhead. The TDD, RF and video processor, and the antennas are attached to the aft skin section as a complete testable assembly. Electronics group functions include radar signal processing, seeker servo control, and all of the computations performed in the central data processor. The WGU-16B is used on AIM-120A missiles, the WGU-41/B is used on AIM-120B missiles, and the WGU-44/B is used on AIM-120C missiles. Guidance sections on AIM-120B and AIM-120C missiles contain Electronic Erasable Programmable Read Only Memory which allow reprogramming of the missile software. Missile software versions are denoted by Tape and Revision Numbers, e.g., Tape 4 Revision 16.

*Armament Section, Weapons Detonation Unit. *
The Weapons Detonation Unit (WDU)-33/B forms an integral part of the tactical missile airframe and includes the warhead, the FZU-49/B (modified Mk 3 Mod 5) safe-arm fuze device, and the Mk 44 Mod 1 booster. The armament section also includes the forward missile hook and hanger. The WDU-33/ B warhead meets the Insensitive Munitions (IM) program requirements. 

*Propulsion Section, Weapons Propulsion Unit*
The Weapons Propulsion Unit (WPU)-6/B consists of an airframe, integral rocket motor, a blast tube and exit cone, and an Arm/Fire Device (AFD) with a visible safe-arm indicator. The high performance rocket motor utilizes a reduced smoke, hydroxyl terminated, polybutadiene propellant in a boost sustain configuration, an asbestos-free insulated case (an integral part of the airframe), and an integral aft closure, blast tube, and nozzle assembly with a removable exit cone to facilitate control section installation/removal. Wings are attached in wing sockets at the forward end of the propulsion section. Provisions are included within this section for mounting the filter rectifier assembly.

*Control Section, Weapons Control Unit.*
The Weapons Control Unit (WCU)-11/B consists of four independently controlled electro-mechanical servo actuators, four lithium-aluminum batteries connected in parallel, and a steel fuselage section that is bolted to the propulsion section aft skirt. Each actuator consists of a brushless DC motor ballscrew, an infinite resolution potentiometer directly coupled to the output shaft, and pulse width modulated control electronics. The output shaft is engaged directly to a squib actuated lock so that it does not interfere with the fin (control surface) installation and removal. (5) Wiring Harness, Harness Cover, and Thermally Initiated Venting System. The wiring harness cover extends from the aft end of the guidance section to the forward end of the control section. Its primary purpose is to provide protection for the wiring harness. The main wiring harness electrically connects the umbilical connector, guidance section, and control section. The wiring harness cover also houses the TIVS. The TIVS is designed to vent rocket motor pressure in the event the missile is exposed to a fuel fire. The TIVS consists of an external thermal cord which, when ignited, triggers an Out-Of-Line Device (OOLD) that ignites a Linear Shape Charge that weakens the rocket motor, allowing the rocket motor to vent without exploding. The OOLD prevents the shaped charge from detonating should the booster in the OOLD inadvertently detonate due to causes such as high impact. The unit has an additional safety feature that causes it to reset within nine to thirteen units of gravity, such as the acceleration experienced during missile launch. This feature prevents the system from functioning during missile free flight so that the associated aerodynamic pressures do not inadvertently enable the TIVS and thereby degrade missile performance. An indicator is on the wiring harness cover showing the condition of the TIVS, either ENABLE or DISABLE. Only TIVS equipped missiles are deployed aboard Aircraft Carriers (CV/CVN). The WPU-6/B Propulsion Section (with TIVS) meets the fast cook-off and sympathetic detonation requirements of the IM program and the policy delineated in OPNAV Instruction (OPNAVINST) 8010.13B. The other requirements (bullet impact, fragment impact, and slow cook-off) have not been met with the current configuration. However, the WPU-6/B has been granted the appropriate waivers for shipboard use. 

*Launchers*
The AMRAAM system includes three new Missile Rail Launchers (MRLs): the LAU-127A/A, in conjunction with the LAU-115, used on the F/A-18C/D aircraft; the LAU-128A/A, and the LAU-129A/A, used on the F-15 and F-16 aircraft, respectively. Additional interface cables are not required between the aircraft and the launcher. The MRL can be installed and operated at all current AIM-9 Sidewinder positions on all candidate aircraft, except F/A-18C/D wing tip stations; and is also capable of launching AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles. The MRL supplements the Sidewinder launchers (except F/A-18C/D wing tip) on AMRAAM capable aircraft.


----------



## SEAL

MZUBAIR said:


> Sir, we have few dozen of *first choice* AIM-120 out of the deal of 500.
> And more coming in few months.
> 
> I think 500 AIM-120 is the huge number's of BVR.
> And the both AIM-120 (500) and SD-10 (few 100's) are enough to defend the country.
> Dont u agree with me??



Bud we can't use Aim-120 on JF-17s Aim-120z are just for the F-16s. 
We are gonna induct 150-250 JF-17s so we need more than 500 SD-10s.


----------



## sathya

Jane's Defence Weekly 


China's SD-10 claimed to be a dual-mode AAM.

Robert Hewson Jane's Air-Launched Weapons Editor - Zhuhai, China



China's SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (AAM), as exhibited at Airshow China earlier in November, may be a considerably more capable weapon than was hitherto believed, Jane's understands. 

Officials from the SD-10's manufacturer, the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center (LOEC), said the missile was designed from the beginning to function with a dual-mode seeker operating in distinct active and passive radar homing modes. If so, the SD-10 is the first AAM to enter service with this acknowledged capability. 

There have been suggestions that the latest AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) developed by Raytheon for the US Air Force and Navy has a similar dual-mode seeker capability. The full capabilities of the AIM-120D remain classified, but its development has been problematic and it has yet to enter operational service. 

The SD-10 - the current production version is the refined SD-10A - has been cleared for service on the Chengdu J-10 and late-model versions of the Shenyang J-8 combat aircraft. By the end of this year the missile is expected to be operational with the PAC JF-17s of the Pakistan Air Force. 

In lengthy discussions with LOEC at the 16-21 November Airshow China exhibition, the operating modes of the SD-10A were set out to Jane's in detail. The missile has an active terminal homing capability, which has been openly described since the first details of the SD-10 were made public in the middle of the last decade. 

What has remained unspoken until now is the missile's claimed ability to home in on radar or electronic warfare emissions from the target aircraft, without support from the launch aircraft or use of the missile's own active seeker modes. 

A LOEC official told Jane's that the passive mode was not intended to be the missile's primary targeting mode and cited the risks to friendly aircraft of relying on passive guidance alone. It is not clear if the SD-10A's seeker can continually alternate between active and passive modes in flight or if it makes a less sophisticated 'one time' switch. 

In the past, Russian sources have given Jane's a detailed account of the assistance supplied by Russian design bureaus in the development of the SD-10. A LOEC official hinted that this co-operation is continuing when he noted: "We [LOEC] have the capability to make the seeker ourselves, but obviously we want it to be the best it possibly can." He confirmed that the missile still relied on some unidentified components that were sourced outside China. 

Within Russia the AGAT Design Bureau has developed several dual-mode seeker designs which it only began discussing in public in 2009. Senior AGAT officials have remained vague when asked by Jane's about who paid for these development programmes, noting only that there is no Russian application and no Russian state support for them. 

During the 1990s China also gained access to the 9B-1032 passive seeker developed by Avtomatika for the Vympel R-27P (AA-10 'Alamo') AAM. A melding of these two design inputs might explain how China arrived at its SD-10 seeker design. According to a LOEC official, the dual-mode capability was designed into the SD-10 from its inception. 

An SD-10A missile (underwing) is part of the weapons suite of a Pakistan Air Force JF-17 at November's Airshow China.


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

THE GAME CHANGER WOULD BE IF WE CAN USE THE SD-10 with our mirages 

Imagine OUR AIRFORCE if we can use these - BVR on our 200 Mirages I mean it just MAKES the mirages even 30-40&#37; more lethal - 

Is there a possibility we can integrate the SD-10 to be used also on our existing fleet ? 

I know these will work with out JF17 thunder platform and J10 up and coming planes -

Even the stealthiest of planes becomes visible on radar when it fires its missile and if 20-30 mirages are flying in air if they get a sniff of the location of plane then its game over for stealth plane

Obviously there is a transition phase between 2010-2015 when we will get max JF17 thunders flying , in case of emergency like the case now with North Korea and South 
if needed can we use the SD-10 in Mirages in case if China is dragged into the mess and we have to help China out obviously


----------



## khurasaan1

I guess is possible ...we might need some modification in the aircraft for this purpose....other than that it will be very hard to integrate them...


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

200 Mirages on SD-10 
30 JF17 Thunders on SD-10 by end of 2010

Would be a wonderful addition together with vision of AWACs added to our airforce - 4 sweedish and 4 Chinese etc makes big difference in our operational capacity

While we also have the US missiles but they are only for our F16 platform so it serves that purpose - we all know how long it takes for those F16 to reach us

SD-10 is just  dependable alternative latest who knows it might be the best missile in our arsenel once we get enough in our inventory

Its just a great tactical advantage knowing our own planes have the same range as the range of any other nation - so every thing is fought on equal footings

I did a little digging in and seems to me - the Mirage has already been tested with few SD-10in past , its a cheaper alternatives to modernize the fleet FAST AND QUICK

Not a credible source to back that up but there have been "reports" that SD-10 was tested with Mirages - since we are getting these - its fair to assume - these missiles will surely improve our operational capacity to defend air space

I would really think twice before flying a big bulky plane into Pakistan air space after we get ample planes fitted with SD-10, I hear that the scrap dealers give you good deal for old fighter wrekage


----------



## silent hawk

The missile is reported to be compatible with Grifo Radars for use in J-10



> From Wikipedia
> The Italian FIAR (now SELEX Galileo) Grifo 2000/16, has been offered to the Pakistan Air Force for installation on the J-10



The PAF Mirages and F-7 PGs already have the Grifo Radar installed hence it can be asumed that as soon as SD-10s are inducted they shall be available on PAF JF-17, Mirages and F-7 PG aircrafts making more than 60% of the fleet BVR capable


----------



## Chogy

It is not difficult at all to patch a heat-seeking missile into an airframe. The British added the AIM-9L to their Harriers in a matter of a couple of weeks prior to the Falklands combat. The missile is set to boresight, the audio patched into the headset, and when the distinct tone is heard, the missile can be launched. Once away, nothing else need be done.

It is very, very much more difficult to add a radar-guided missile into an airframe not designed for it. The entire system is highly integrated. The radar must be capable of providing the correct guidance signals to the missile, all at very high speed, and with accuracy. It CAN be done, such as the SD-10 to the JF-17, but it is going to take a bit of time, access to source codes and very specific technical data, and some talented engineers. If China provides engineers to help, it'd be done in 1/10th of the time compared to a solo effort. I'm assuming that if China sells the missile in quantity to Pakistan, part of that sale would be technical assistance to do just that.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## TechLahore

^^ You are right. If you read this (VERY interesting) thread based on information from servicemen and highly reliable sources:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/82390-tracking-jf-17-information-post-zuhai-air-show.html

you will see that the JF-17 is developing very rapidly. The PAF has a very substantial presence of engineers ("a small city") in China to work on the SD-10B with the Chinese. Apparently Pakistan wants to standardize on this BVR AAM.

Very impressed with these developments. Especially the upcoming AESA, SD-10B, multi-rack AAM (simple, but important) and IRST enhancements.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## rockstarIN

@Silent Hawk,

I think the above reply is to suffice your questions regarding the integration of Active radar missile into a fighter as we discussed in 'Best BVR capable missile in South Asia Thread' 

-thanks Chogy

Regards,

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rockstarIN

TechLahore said:


> ^^ You are right. If you read this (VERY interesting) thread based on information from servicemen and highly reliable sources:
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/82390-tracking-jf-17-information-post-zuhai-air-show.html
> 
> you will see that the JF-17 is developing very rapidly. The PAF has a very substantial presence of engineers ("a small city") in China to work on the SD-10B with the Chinese. Apparently Pakistan wants to standardize on this BVR AAM.
> 
> Very impressed with these developments. Especially the upcoming AESA, SD-10B, multi-rack AAM (simple, but important) and IRST enhancements.



It is for sure that PAF will add SD-10 into JFT, but it will take sufficient time, even if you look for a new radar for JFT, will take longer time..
Rgds,


----------



## abaseen99

SD 10



AIM 120

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## TechLahore

rockstar said:


> It is for sure that PAF will add SD-10 into JFT, but it will take sufficient time, even if you look for a new radar for JFT, will take longer time..
> Rgds,



Current JF-17 radar is capable of being used with SD-10A.


----------



## rockstarIN

TechLahore said:


> Current JF-17 radar is capable of being used with SD-10A.



You guys were looking for french radars, thats why I have mentioned that.


----------



## TechLahore

rockstar said:


> You guys were looking for french radars, thats why I have mentioned that.



Please see thread I have cited above. JF-17 is capable of using SD-10A, and the reason the PAF has now opted for Chinese radars for all aircraft is because a) we will get AESA tech and b) we will be able to integrate our Ra'ad ALCM, PGMs and SD-10B without sharing any information with a third-party supplier.


----------



## abaseen99

France
Matra R550 Magic &#8212; short-range, IR guided 
Matra Magic II &#8212; IR guided missile. 
Matra R530 &#8212; medium-range, IR or radar guided 
Magic Super 530F/Super 530D &#8212; medium-range, radar-guided 
MBDA MICA &#8212; medium-range, IR or radar guided 
[edit] Germany
Ruhrstahl X-4 &#8212; World War II design, first practical anti-aircraft missile, MCLOS, never saw service 
Henschel Hs 298 &#8212; World War II design, MCLOS, never saw service 
MBDA Meteor 
IRIS-T 
[edit] European
MBDA Meteor &#8212; medium range, active radar homing; design to replace AMRAAM 
IRIS-T &#8212; short range infrared homing; replacement for AIM-9 Sidewinder 
[edit] India
Astra missile BVRAAM 
Novator K-100 
[edit] Iran
Fatter &#8212; copy of U.S. AIM-9 Sidewinder [6] 
Sedjil &#8212; copy of U.S. MIM-23 Hawk converted to be carried by aircraft [7] 
[edit] Iraq
Al Humurrabi &#8212; Long range, semi active radar 
[edit] Israel
Rafael Shafrir &#8212; first Israeli domestic AAM 
Rafael Shafrir 2 &#8212; improved Shafrir missile 
Rafael Python 3 &#8212; medium range IR-homing missile with all aspect capability [4] 
Rafael Python 4 &#8212; medium range IR-homing missile with HMS-guidance capability [5] 
Rafael Python 5 &#8212; improved Python 4 with electro-optical imaging seeker [6] 
Rafael Derby &#8212; Also known as the Alto, this is a medium-range, BVR active radar-homing missile [7] 
[edit] Italy
Alenia Aspide &#8212; Italian manufactured version of the AIM-7 Sparrow, based on the AIM-7E. 
[edit] Japan
AAM-3 &#8212; short-range Type 90 air-to-air missile 
AAM-4 &#8212; middle-range Type 99 air-to-air missile 
AAM-5 &#8212; short-range Type 04 air-to-air missile 
[edit] People's Republic of China
PL-1 &#8212; PRC version of the Soviet Kaliningrad K-5 (AA-1 Alkali), retired. 
PL-2 &#8212; PRC version of the Soviet Vympel K-13 (AA-2 Atoll), which was based on AIM-9B Sidewinder. [8] Retired & replaced by PL-5 in PLAAF service. 
PL-3 &#8212; updated version of the PL-2, did not enter service. 
PL-5 &#8212; updated version of the PL-2, known versions include: [9] 
PL-5A &#8212; semi-active radar-homing AAM intended to replace the PL-2, did not enter service. Resembles AIM-9G in appearance. 
PL-5B &#8212; IR version, entered service in 1990s to replace the PL-2 SRAAM. Limited off-boresight 
PL-5C &#8212; Improved version comparable to AIM-9H or AIM-9L in performance 
PL-5E &#8212; All-aspect attack version, resembles AIM-9P in appearance. 
PL-7 &#8212; PRC version of the IR-homing French R550 Magic AAM, did not enter service. [10] 
PL-8 &#8212; PRC version of the Israeli Rafael Python 3 [11] 
PL-9 &#8212; short range IR guided missile, marketed for export. One known improved version (PL-9C). [12] 
PL-10 &#8212; semi-active radar-homing medium-range missile based on the HQ-61 SAM, [13] often confused with PL-11. Did not enter service. 
PL-11 &#8212; medium-range air-to-air missile (MRAAM), based on the HQ-61C & Italian Aspide (AIM-7) technology. Limited service with J-8-B/D/H fighters. Known versions include: [14] 
PL-11 &#8212; MRAAM with semi-active radar homing, based on the HQ-61C SAM and Aspide seeker technology, exported as FD-60 [15] 
PL-11A &#8212; Improved PL-11 with increased range, warhead, and more effective seeker. The new seeker only requires fire-control radar guidance during the terminal stage, providing a basic LOAL (lock-on after launch) capability. 
PL-11B &#8212; Also known as PL-11 AMR, improved PL-11 with AMR-1 active radar-homing seeker. 
LY-60 &#8212; PL-11 adopted for navy ships for air-defense, sold to Pakistan but does not appear to be in service with the Chinese Navy. [16] 
PL-12 (SD-10) &#8212; medium-range active radar missile [17] 
TY-90 &#8212; light IR-homing air-to-air missile designed for helicopters [18] 
[edit] Russia/Soviet
Kaliningrad K-5 (NATO reporting name AA-1 'Alkali') &#8212; beam-riding 
Vympel K-13 (NATO reporting name AA-2 'Atoll') &#8212; short-range IR or SARH 
Kaliningrad K-8 (NATO reporting name AA-3 'Anab') &#8212; IR or SARH 
Raduga K-9 (NATO reporting name AA-4 'Awl') &#8212; IR or SARH 
Bisnovat R-4 (NATO reporting name AA-5 'Ash') &#8212; IR or SARH 
Bisnovat R-40 (NATO reporting name AA-6 'Acrid') &#8212; long-range IR or SARH 
Vympel R-23 (NATO reporting name AA-7 'Apex') &#8212; medium-range SARAH or IR 
Molniya R-60 (NATO reporting name AA-8 'Aphid') &#8212; short-range IR 
Vympel R-33 (NATO reporting name AA-9 'Amos') &#8212; long range active radar 
Vympel R-27 (NATO reporting name AA-10 'Alamo') &#8212; medium-range SARH or IR 
Vympel R-73 (NATO reporting name AA-11 'Archer') &#8212; short-range IR 
Vympel R-77 (NATO reporting name AA-12 'Adder') &#8212; medium-range active radar 
Vympel R-37 (NATO reporting name AA-X-13 'Arrow') &#8212; long-range SARH or active radar 
Novator KS-172 AAM-L &#8212; extreme long range, inertial navigation with active radar for terminal homing 
[edit] South Africa
A-Darter &#8212; Short range IR (With Brazil) 
V3 Kukri &#8212; Short range IR 
R-Darter &#8212; Beyond visual range (BVR) radar-guided missile 
[edit] Taiwan
Sky Sword I (TC-1) &#8212; air-to-air 
Sky Sword II (TC-2) &#8212; air-to-air 
[edit] United Kingdom
Fireflash &#8212; short range beam-riding 
Firestreak &#8212; short range IR 
Red Top &#8212; short range IR 
Skyflash &#8212; medium-range radar-guided missile based on the AIM-7E2, said to have quick warm-up times of 1 to 2 seconds. 
AIM-132 ASRAAM &#8212; short range IR 
MBDA Meteor &#8212; long range radar guided missile due to enter service in 2013. 
[edit] United States
AIM-4 Falcon &#8212; radar (later IR) guided 
AIM-7 Sparrow &#8212; medium range semi-active radar 
AIM-9 Sidewinder &#8212; short range IR Brazil
Mectron MAA-1 Piranha &#8212; Short range IR 
MAA-1B IR guided missile. 
A-Darter &#8212; Short range IR (With South Africa) 
AIM-54 Phoenix &#8212; long range, semi-active and active radar 
AIM-120 AMRAAM &#8212; medium range, active radar; replaces AIM-7 Sparrow List of missiles by country


----------



## gambit

Chogy said:


> *It is not difficult at all to patch a heat-seeking missile into an airframe.* The British added the AIM-9L to their Harriers in a matter of a couple of weeks prior to the Falklands combat. The missile is set to boresight, the audio patched into the headset, and when the distinct tone is heard, the missile can be launched. Once away, nothing else need be done.
> 
> *It is very, very much more difficult to add a radar-guided missile* into an airframe not designed for it. The entire system is highly integrated. The radar must be capable of providing the correct *guidance signals* to the missile, all at very high speed, and with accuracy. It CAN be done, such as the SD-10 to the JF-17, but it is going to take a bit of time, access to source codes and very specific technical data, and some talented engineers. If China provides engineers to help, it'd be done in 1/10th of the time compared to a solo effort. I'm assuming that if China sells the missile in quantity to Pakistan, part of that sale would be technical assistance to do just that.


The differences between infrared (passive) and radar (active) detection schemes should *NEVER EVER* be underestimated.

In a passive detection scheme, the target has control over its character emissions. The target is in dominance of the medium and if we are talking about infrared then the medium is infrared signals. The receiver is absolutely dependent upon that target for information.

For example...In an infrared array, there would be a group of pixels that would be 'activated' upon detection of IR signals. In the center of this group there would be a smaller group of pixels that will record the highest strength of an IR source. If the data processing -- in real time -- pick up a decrease of 'activated' pixels and a decrease in IR intensity, how is the missile to know that the aircraft is moving away from it, or if the engine(s) has a decreased output of IR emissions? Conversely...If the data processing pick up an increase of 'activated' pixels and a corresponding increase in IR intensity in the center of said 'activated' pixels, how is the missile to know that it is closing in on the victim aircraft or that the aircraft had just increase its engine(s) into the afterburner region to escape? Which is better for the decision making process, the uncertainty or the assured? But if we totally dependent upon the target to provide information about itself, do we need to have a complex decision making process, especially if the information is as simple as infrared intensity? This is why infrared missiles are simpler to design, manufactured, or integrate from an external supplier into a currently deployed aircraft.

Contrast this with the radar detection scheme, which is an active method. If we have 100 pulses in a pulse train and if there are 80 returns, we can process the time gaps between *EACH* echo pulse in relation to its previous and successive pulses to know with near absolute certainty that the aircraft is moving away from us or that we are closing upon it. Below an arbitrarily set threshold of returned pulses -- or echoes -- we would ignore everything but that is another data processing issue. If the time gaps increases between each echo we can say that the aircraft is moving away from us. If the time gaps compresses, we can say that the aircraft is closing upon us, or that the missile is closing in, depends on one's perspective. Even 'stealth' aircrafts are not exempt from this law of physics. The advantage that 'stealth' aircrafts has is that it can influence the behaviors of those echoes but that is another discussion altogether.

Compound this with the fact that in a single pulse train, the radar detection scheme provide us with three axes of target information in the case of an airborne target:






Each axis out of 80 echoes in a 100-pulses pulse train will give us rate of changes of that target -- in real time. Infrared simply cannot match as far as data stream goes. Which lead us up to the next difficulty...Who is better to give young Helio Castroneves guidance, ten high school level driving instructors or a single F1 champion? There is a certain point where we cannot 'dumb down' the AMRAAM any further where the radar information required by the AMRAAM is insufficient for this missile to operate. The source of that guidance must contain 3-axes target velocity, acceleration, and heading of their changes. If the data processing hardware is not sophisticated enough to process 80 echoes out of 100 pulses to give to this sophisticated missile, then the integration of an external source will fail and that failure will show just on paper.

Access to the source codes that governs the entire weapon system will help only to a certain level of 'dumbing' down the AMRAAM where one might as well design and build one's own missile to match one's own radar technology. It would be cheaper and one would be in total possession of this weapon system. Why would you want to pay full price for an AMRAAM when you are able to exploit merely %50 of its capabilities because your current radar system cannot give the AMRAAM what it demand? This is why infrared missiles are best against stationary targets, or if the target's 3-axes rate of changes can be out accelerated by the missile's own velocity, which would make an IR-only missile best for within visual range fights.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## SQ8

Uh gambit..would the above then imply that the Russian messed up with their dual heats on their T versions of the Alamo and R-77?
Or the Pk wasnt much at all to look at if you fired that at a fighter...(assuming they expected to engage B-52's with em)


----------



## dbc

gambit said:


> The differences between infrared (passive) and radar (active) detection schemes should *NEVER EVER* be underestimated.
> 
> In a passive detection scheme, the target has control over its character emissions. The target is in dominance of the medium and if we are talking about infrared then the medium is infrared signals. The receiver is absolutely dependent upon that target for information.
> 
> ........................



One aspect of integration that is often overlooked is mid course guidance, if mid-course update is denied the missile will likely end up several miles off target. Remains to be seen if SD-10's data link to the launching or guiding aircraft is robust and secure enough to operate in dense hostile electronic environment. 

The effectiveness of the AIM-120 is enhanced by two way data link and GPS-enhanced IMU, not sure if the SD-10's have similar capabilities.


----------



## notorious_eagle

TechLahore said:


> ^^ You are right. If you read this (VERY interesting) thread based on information from servicemen and highly reliable sources:
> 
> http://www.defence.pk/forums/jf-17-thunder/82390-tracking-jf-17-information-post-zuhai-air-show.html
> 
> you will see that the JF-17 is developing very rapidly. *The PAF has a very substantial presence of engineers ("a small city") in China to work on the SD-10B with the Chinese.* Apparently Pakistan wants to standardize on this BVR AAM.
> 
> Very impressed with these developments. Especially the upcoming AESA, SD-10B, multi-rack AAM (simple, but important) and IRST enhancements.



In further addition to your point, our engineers are working closely with our Chinese friends on the FC20, ZDK 03, radars, avionics and other weapon systems. From what i have been told, the FC20 is going to be a beast and comparable if not superior to most of the 4.5 Generation Aircrafts. Never in Pakistan's history have we ever cooperated at this level with our Chinese friends. China's Defence Industry is growing at an exponential rate, i see a very bright future for Pakistan's Armed Forces.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gambit

santro said:


> Uh gambit..would the above then imply that the Russian messed up with their dual heats on their T versions of the Alamo and R-77?
> Or the Pk wasnt much at all to look at if you fired that at a fighter...(assuming they expected to engage B-52's with em)


If you are referring to the modularity of those missiles then no, I do not think it is a mistake in designing such. You can have the most sophisticated flight controls coupled with the most basic sensor-guidance package. But not the other way around. The target dependent passive sensor guidance system such as infrared is the most basic type. It is the first 'fire-and-forget' missile. Do not equate 'fire-and-forget' with assured success. For the infrared guided missile, once the missile is on its way, there is nothing the parent aircraft can do. The 'fire-and-forget' simply mean you can ignore the missile, hope it is successful, and you move on to the next task. Radar guidance, semi-active and active, are the next necessary and logical evolution because we want increased odds of success via control of a medium -- EM signals. So by designing a missile to have its sensor-guidance package easily change out, you increase flexibility for sales and adaptability across a wider range of aircrafts without designing a new missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Just the graphics of the x and y axis did it for me ,  all the other stuff was bonus


----------



## MZUBAIR

*The questions are....

Would SD-10 can be used with Griffo radars?

If YES, then 
Can SD-10 also be used in with F-7PG and Mirage ROSE?*


----------



## silent hawk

MZUBAIR said:


> *The questions are....
> 
> Would SD-10 can be used with Griffo radars?
> 
> If YES, then
> Can SD-10 also be used in with F-7PG and Mirage ROSE?*





> From Wikipedia
> 
> The Italian FIAR (now SELEX Galileo) Grifo 2000/16, has been offered to the Pakistan Air Force for installation on the J-10, should the PAF induct the aircraft



If the Chinese are offering Grifo on J-10 it means that they have integrated the SD-10 with Grifo on that platform. Ofering the J-10 with Grifo and no SD-10 would not make any sense.

Based on this report I am pretty confident that the SD-10 shall also be compatible or shall be made compatible with existing Grifo Radars installed in F-7 PGs and Mirages

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## unicorn

*China discloses new SD-10 combat capabilities*
By Robert Hewson


China's SD-10 beyond visual range air-to-air missile (AAM) may be a considerably more capable weapon than has hitherto been believed. Officials from the SD-10's manufacturer, the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Centre (LOEC), say the SD-10 was designed from the beginning to function with a dual-mode seeker operating in distinct active and passive radar homing modes. If so, the SD-10 (and current production SD-10A) are the first AAMs to enter service with this acknowledged capability.

In lengthy discussions with LOEC at the Airshow China 2010 in Zhuhai between 16-21 November, the operating modes of the SD-10 were described to Jane's in detail. The missile has an active-radar terminal homing capability which has been public knowledge since the first details of the SD-10 were officially released in the middle of the last decade.

What has remained unspoken until now is the missile's claimed ability to home in on radar or electronic warfare emissions from the target aircraft, without support from the launch aircraft or use of the missile's own active seeker modes.

A LOEC official told Jane's that the passive mode was not intended to be the missile's primary targeting method - and cited the risks to friendly aircraft when relying on passive guidance mode alone. It is not clear if the SD-10's seeker can continuously alternate between active and passive modes in flight, or if it makes a less sophisticated 'one time' switch.


----------



## abaseen99

Development: 

The SD-10 active-radar BVR air-to-air missile is now the highest priority air-to-air weapons programme for China's military industry, and has supplanted several previous developmental projects (such as the PL-10 and PL-11) in terms of effort and importance. When, and if, it enters service, it should provide the People's Liberation Army Air Force with a sophisticated, indigenous airborne weapon that will complement, to some degree the Russian-supplied R-27/R-77 missiles that equip the PLAAF's Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30 force. 
The SD-10 (perhaps known also as the PL-12) is evolving under aegis of the Beijing-based China National Aero Technology Import & Export Corporation (CATIC), while work on various aspects of the programme is underway at a number of different technical centres around the country. The SD-10 is listed as part of CATIC's current 'Thunder-Lightning' family of air-to-air missiles, that includes the PL-5E, PL-9C and TY-90 systems (all developed by the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center). However, confusion surrounds the provenance, and even the designation, of the SD-10 programme. 'SD-10' is the export designation of a national programme that may, or may not be, the PL-12. 
The PL-12 designation has also been associated with a notional air-to-air development of China's LY-60 surface-to-air missile, but the actual status of this development effort is unclear. The SD-10 on the other hand is a very real programme. 
Prior to the emergence of the SD-10, China's active radar seeker AAM development programme was sometimes identified as the 'AMR-1'. During Air Show China 1996, held during November in Zhuhai, the China Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute/No 607 Research Institute exhibited a newly-developed active radar seeker, the AMR-1. This seeker was, in turn, believed to have been applied to a new air-to-air missile design, derived from the LY-60 surface-to-air missile, and dubbed the 'PL-12'. This active radar missile, and the earlier semi-active radar homing PL-11, seemed to have a common design heritage with the Italian Aspide missile, supplied to China during the late 1980s. The status of the PL-11 and 'LY-60/PL-12' development programmes is unclear, but sources within CATIC say these earlier programmes have all been abandoned in favour of the SD-10. 
The existence of the SD-10 programme was acknowledged by Chinese officials for the first time in early 2002 (the first pictures of the new missile appeared from Chinese sources during 2001). According to CATIC sources the missile has a range of 80 km. Earlier speculation around the AMR-1/LY-60 programme suggested that a ramjet engine was being developed for it, and such a powerplant would allow a missile to be effective at such long ranges. All available models and artist's impressions of the SD-10 released to date clearly show a rocket-powered missile with a conventional airframe configuration. However, unidentified models of a notional ramjet-powered air-to-air missile have been shown in China and so an enhanced propulsion solution may be under consideration, or even under development, for the SD-10. According to a CATIC engineer, speaking in February 2002, several SD-10 test firings have already been undertaken, and most of the SD-10's subsystems testing had been completed (although the missile was not yet ready for service). 

Description 

The SD-10 is outwardly very similar to the US-designed AIM-120 AMRAAM. The two share a comparable aerodynamic configuration, although with a length of 3.85m, a diameter of 20.3 cm and a weight of 180 kg the SD-10 is a little longer, wider and heavier than the AMRAAM. The SD-10 has four rear-mounted control fins that each have a very distinctive notch cut into their base. These fins are longer and more prominent than those of the AMRAAM and are cropped at an angle (rather than in line with the missile body). Four larger triangular fins are fixed to the mid-section of the missile. Internally, the leading edge of the centrebody fins is in line with the start of the missile's rocket motor. That motor is a variable-thrust sold rocket booster, that offers two levels of motive power for different sections of the flight envelope. 
CATIC is known to be developing X-band and Ku-band active radar seekers, which may be intended for the SD-10. However the latest reports confirm that China has been co-operating closely with Russia's AGAT Research Institute, based in Moscow, and that AGAT is the source of the SD-10's essential active seeker. This joint development effort (perhaps with the name 'Project 129') has reportedly seen the supply of AGAT's 9B-1348 active-radar seeker (developed for the Vympel R-77, AA-12 'Adder') to China for integration with a Chinese-developed missile, the SD-10. Alternatively, technology from AGAT's 9B-1103M seeker family may be offered to China. Russia is also the source for the missile's inertial navigation system and datalink. 
The SD-10 has four engagement modes. To take the greatest advantage of its maximum range it will use a mix of command guidance (via a datalink) plus its own inertial guidance before entering the active radar terminal guidance phase. The missile can also be launched to a pre-selected point, using its strap-down inertial system, before switching on its own seeker for a terminal search. Over short ranges the missile can be launched in a 'fire-and-forget' mode using its own active seeker from the outset. Finally, the SD-10 has a 'home-on-jam' mode that allows it to passively track and engage an emitting target, without ever using its own active radar or a radar from the launch aircraft. The seeker is connected to a digital flight control system that uses signal processing techniques to track a target. The missile's warhead is linked to a laser proximity fuse. 
The SD-10 is claimed to have an operational ceiling of 20 km, with a maximum effective range of 70 km and a minimum engagement range of 1,000 m. The missile has a 40 g manoeuvring limit and, according to CATIC, it has been tested for a 100-hour captive 'live flight' life. 

Operational status 

The SD-10 is not yet believed to be in PLAAF service, but is in an advanced stage of development and may have been released for operational test and evaluation with the air force. According to CATIC, the SD-10 can be carried by a range of aircraft including the J-7 (F-7), J-8 (F- and MiG-series fighters, or any Western aircraft that have been fitted with the missile's PF95 launcher and pylon. The obvious radar limitations of these aircraft make it clear that they will probably never be fitted with the SD-10, at least in Chinese service. While trials firings have probably been conducted using Shenyang J-8 testbeds, it is believed that the SD-10/PL-12 programme is intended, initially, to equip China's fleet of Su-27 (J-11) 'Flankers' as part of a wider nationally-sourced capability enhancement for the PLAAF's 'Flanker' force. 
The other potential applications for the SD-10/PL-12 in Chinese service are on the Chengdu J-10 next-generation combat aircraft now under development, perhaps the upgraded Shenyang J-8M 'Finback' and the CATIC FC-1/Super 7 lightweight multirole combat aircraft being developed jointly by China and Pakistan. During 2001 officials at Pakistan's National Development Complex confirmed that the NDC was conducting study/development work on a new active-radar missile programme, a possible reference to the SD-10. Certainly the most prominent 'public appearance' of the SD-10 to date has been on the full-size mock-up of the FC-1/Super 7. Pakistan has established a national production line for the Italian Galileo Avionica (formerly FIAR) Grifo 7 multimode fire-control radar at its Kamra Avionics and Radar Facility. A version of the Grifo radar (Grifo S7) is being developed for the FC-1/Super 7, and the Grifo is already fitted to Pakistan's Chengdu F-7PGs. In July 2002 Galileo Avionica confirmed that it would be offering the latest development of the Grifo radar, the Grifo 2000/16, as a candidate radar for the J-10 once its entered the production phase. Galileo Avionics describes the Grifo 2000/16 (originally designed as a radar for F-16 upgrades) as a modern, modular, multimode radar with enhanced air-to-air capabilities that is compatible with modern BVR missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## abaseen99

2010-12-01 (China Military News cited from Janes.com and written by Robert Hewson) -- China's SD-10 medium-range air-to-air missile (AAM), as exhibited at Airshow China earlier in November, may be a considerably more capable weapon than was hitherto believed, Jane's understands.

Officials from the SD-10's manufacturer, the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center (LOEC), said the missile was designed from the beginning to function with a dual-mode seeker operating in distinct active and passive radar homing modes. If so, the SD-10 is the first AAM to enter service with this acknowledged capability.



There have been suggestions that the latest AIM-120D Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air missile (AMRAAM) developed by Raytheon for the US Air Force and Navy has a similar dual-mode seeker capability. The full capabilities of the AIM-120D remain classified, but its development has been problematic and it has yet to enter operational service.

The SD-10 - the current production version is the refined SD-10A - has been cleared for service on the Chengdu J-10 and late-model versions of the Shenyang J-8 combat aircraft. By the end of this year the missile is expected to be operational with the PAC JF-17s of the pakistan Air Force.

In lengthy discussions with LOEC at the 16-21 November Airshow China exhibition, the operating modes of the SD-10A were set out to Jane's in detail. The missile has an active terminal homing capability, which has been openly described since the first details of the SD-10 were made public in the middle of the last decade

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Stealthflanker

Anyway is there any mention on Flight trajectory of the SD-10 ? is that more than 70km range is achieved through utilization of "Loft Glide (Boost-Sustain-Coast-Glide)" trajectory or "straight ahead (Boost-Sustain-Coast)"

hmm as far as i know typical AAM use a loft glide trajectory to extend range farther than "Straight trajectory , the AMRAAM uses such flightshceme to achieve its "100km+" range .

In my opinon if the SD-10 can achieve its 100 km range through "straight ahead" trajectory (assume it's launched in "ideal" altitude which i usually put in 12.000 meters) its range in Loft Glide mode.. would be longer depending on the Lift to drag Ratio of the AAM's , as far as i know typical L/D ratio for Axisymmetric missile is usually lower than lifting body but typically reach 3-4.

The range can be found by multiplying the Apogee (the peak altitude reached by the missile) by the L/D ratio of the missile , hmm let's say the SD-10 launched from that 12.000 meters altitude is able to reach 35000 meters in apogee , at the altitude the SD-10 will commence gliding with L/D max (let's say 4) with optimum Angle of attack .

The range would be : 4*35000 = 140.000 meters or over 140 km addition .


----------



## MZUBAIR

SD-10 is succeffully developed (which is close), n will be integrated with GRIFO.....then I feel that* 200 Mirage n F7's *will surve for some more years alng BVR capabilities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

MZUBAIR said:


> SD-10 is succeffully developed (which is close), n will be integrated with GRIFO.....then I feel that* 200 Mirage n F7's *will surve for some more years alng BVR capabilities.






well,

They still have to serve until at least 2015.

That's 4 years away!!


----------



## Mani2020

* Jane's: Chinas SD-10 missile performance
*


According to JDW (Jane's Defense Weekly) December 01, 2010 issue, *the Chinese made SD-10* *BVR AAM maker LOTDC (Luoyang Optoelectronic Technology Development Center) has claimed that SD-10 from the very start was designed to use dual Active plus Passive guidance systems. If so then SD-10 will become the first BVR AAM commissioned to date, with such exceptional capabilities. *

At the end of November, during Zhuhai Air Show, LOTDC described in detail the guidance system of SD-10 to JDW. Broad public awareness exists about the guidance and tracking system of the earlier SD-10s but according to JDW, the latest details go well beyond this and include the missile-oriented target tracking system and ECM capabilities. 

*An LOTDC official claimed that the Passive Homing Mode isnt the primary mode of guidance for SD-10 since it can potentially be harmful for the friendly aircraft. 
*
At present it isnt clear whether SD-10 continuously switches back and forth between the Active and Passive Modes or both can be used continuously. 


*Russia is also helping LOTDC in the R&D of SD-10. 
*
An LOTDC official said, "We can manufacture the seeker ourselves but we need the Russian help to keep improving it. 

He also accepted that some parts are still imported. 

In Russia, AGAT Design Bureau has designed several dual seekers that may be using Active, Semi-Active and Passive Modes but their Active and Passive Mode homing is programmed to switch according to a pre-set sequence. 

AGAT Design Bureau claimed that in the Passive Mode, their detectors can detect the radar emissions of an airplane from almost a distance of about 200 km while in the Active Mode, the seeker only has a range of about 20 km. 

*Back in the 1990s, Chinas 9B-1032 Passive Anti-Radiation Seeker had a maximum detection range of about 240 km. May be this same seeker is now the Passive Seeker of SD-10.*

*According to some experts, ECM capability of SD-10 is quite good; effective against several types of electronic interferences that basically cover the whole range of the current types of the electronic interferences. 

*
*The performance of SD-10 is better than the US AIM-120 A & B, Russian R-77 and Mica of France.* 

LOTDC has identified two versions of this missile only: SD-10 and the current SD-10A. 

SD-10A has a number of changes in its design but the most important improvement are its added stability and its additional load carrying capacity. 

SD-10 is quite versatile and can be used by a variety of advanced fighters. With the cooperation of Brazil, xiaolong fighters (JF-17) were able to launch SD-10 missiles.

*An LOTDC official said that most of the R&D work of the SD-10 is complete except may **be some minor fine-tuning of the rocket motor. *

Also, in future, some SD-10 versions may be used as SAMs by the Army and Navy as well. 

(Compilation: Ssu-nien)


----------



## Super Falcon

i think SD 10 will do fine aainst indians in a war becoz i have faith on chinese systems becoz they make them specially to kick the indian aces


----------



## deckingraj

Super Falcon said:


> i think SD 10 will do fine aainst indians in a war becoz i have faith on chinese systems becoz they make them specially to kick the indian aces



It is such wise comments that burn the whole thread and subject them to troll fest...Kudos for that!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## hataf

Super Falcon said:


> i think SD 10 will do fine aainst indians in a war becoz i have faith on chinese systems becoz they make them specially to kick the indian aces



you are elite member no one can expect such a S**t from u

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## abaseen99

During modern air combat, beside the pilot skill, the next important thing is the beyond visual range (BVR) capability of each fighter. This is determined by the avionics and medium range missile capability. F-22?s avionic is one generation more advanced than any Sukhoi family or whatever in Chinese inventory. However, the missiles are still quite comparable.



AIM-120 AMRAAM
F-22 probably has a most advanced missile. Its AIM-120D AMRAAM has a range 95 km, combined with a sophisticated avionics, makes F-22 a most lethal fighter. Russia R-77 (AA-12) although has been claimed to posses better maneuverability and range (175 km), it does not have any combat experience yet. Also, the avionics systems on board Sukhoi and Mig jet fighters are less proven than their American counterpart. On the other hand, China recently produce it latest missile, the SD-10 that is used in its J-10 and J-11 fighters. It has a range of 80 km, making it is comparable to AIM-120C.


By judging from the specification, R-77 could be the best BVR missile in service today. It only need some combat experience to prove its capability. AIM-120C had been used effectively during Kosovo and Iraq Wars. Lastly, SD-10, although still inferior to both American dan Russian have, has shown a great potential of Chinese future military technology.


----------



## Pfpilot

abaseen99 said:


> During modern air combat, beside the pilot skill, the next important thing is the beyond visual range (BVR) capability of each fighter. This is determined by the avionics and medium range missile capability. F-22?s avionic is one generation more advanced than any Sukhoi family or whatever in Chinese inventory. However, the missiles are still quite comparable.
> 
> 
> 
> AIM-120 AMRAAM
> F-22 probably has a most advanced missile. Its AIM-120D AMRAAM has a range 95 km, combined with a sophisticated avionics, makes F-22 a most lethal fighter. Russia R-77 (AA-12) although has been claimed to posses better maneuverability and range (175 km), it does not have any combat experience yet. Also, the avionics systems on board Sukhoi and Mig jet fighters are less proven than their American counterpart. On the other hand, China recently produce it latest missile, the SD-10 that is used in its J-10 and J-11 fighters. It has a range of 80 km, making it is comparable to AIM-120C.
> 
> 
> By judging from the specification, R-77 could be the best BVR missile in service today. It only need some combat experience to prove its capability. AIM-120C had been used effectively during Kosovo and Iraq Wars. Lastly, SD-10, although still inferior to both American dan Russian have, has shown a great potential of Chinese future military technology.



Sorry if this has been explained before but I have been very curious as to how big of an advantage the massive range advantage provides the r-77? Even if we are to assume that none of these missiles will be used from their maximum distance, the r-77 will be fired far earlier than a sd-10 no? The Americans can afford to have a shorter range missile, thanks to supercruise and stealth on their f-22s, where does that leave Pakistan?


----------



## Mani2020

Pfpilot said:


> Sorry if this has been explained before but I have been very curious as to how big of an advantage the massive range advantage provides the r-77? Even if we are to assume that none of these missiles will be used from their maximum distance, the r-77 will be fired far earlier than a sd-10 no? The Americans can afford to have a shorter range missile, thanks to supercruise and stealth on their f-22s, where does that leave Pakistan?



well i have talked to and listened few people who have experience or knowledge about BVR .What i have heard from them and concluded is BVR is not the only thing when it comes to war .they all said that having BVR is no doubt a psychological advantage over enemy but it doesnot mean that this sole advantage can give you air supremacy over enemy .Even the best of BVR missile has success rate of ~25&#37;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## rockstarIN

Pfpilot said:


> Sorry if this has been explained before but I have been very curious as to how big of an advantage the massive range advantage provides the r-77? Even if we are to assume that none of these missiles will be used from their maximum distance, the r-77 will be fired far earlier than a sd-10 no? The Americans can afford to have a shorter range missile, thanks to supercruise and stealth on their f-22s, where does that leave Pakistan?



Well, more range means more fuel/energy left with the missile, it can sustain more wen the target air craft take evasive measures. Also it can fire a bit earlier than other missiles coz of its long range. Apart from than R-77 has a passive mode as if its active seeker got jammed, it will passively target the emission air Craft, like an anti-radiation missile. But it has its own limitations as Gambit explained in this forum..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## malikkhawar

he SD-10 is outwardly very similar to the US-designed AIM-120 AMRAAM. The two share a comparable aerodynamic configuration, although with a length of 3.85m, a diameter of 20.3 cm and a weight of 180 kg the SD-10 is a little longer, wider and heavier than the AMRAAM. The SD-10 has four rear-mounted control fins that each have a very distinctive notch cut into their base. These fins are longer and more prominent than those of the AMRAAM and are cropped at an angle (rather than in line with the missile body). Four larger triangular fins are fixed to the mid-section of the missile. Internally, the leading edge of the centrebody fins is in line with the start of the missile's rocket motor. That motor is a variable-thrust sold rocket booster, that offers two levels of motive power for different sections of the flight envelope.
CATIC is known to be developing X-band and Ku-band active radar seekers, which may be intended for the SD-10. However the latest reports confirm that China has been co-operating closely with Russia's AGAT Research Institute, based in Moscow, and that AGAT is the source of the SD-10's essential active seeker. This joint development effort (perhaps with the name 'Project 129') has reportedly seen the supply of AGAT's 9B-1348 active-radar seeker (developed for the Vympel R-77, AA-12 'Adder') to China for integration with a Chinese-developed missile, the SD-10. Alternatively, technology from AGAT's 9B-1103M seeker family may be offered to China. Russia is also the source for the missile's inertial navigation system and datalink.
The SD-10 is claimed to have an operational ceiling of 20 km, with a maximum effective range of 70 km and a minimum engagement range of 1,000 m. The missile has a 40 g manoeuvring limit and, according to CATIC, it has been tested for a 100-hour captive 'live flight' life.


----------



## abaseen99

AIM-120A 



The AIM-120A is powered by a solid-propellant rocket motor in a WPU-6/B propulsion section. Before launch, the launching aircraft's fire control system programs the missile's inertial autopilot in the WGU-16/B guidance unit to bring it into a homing basket in the vicinity of the target. The autopilot can receive mid-course updates from the aircraft via a data link. The AMRAAM's WCU-11/B control section controls the missile in flight with the four movable tail fins. As soon as the target is within range, the AMRAAM activates its active radar seeker for autonomous terminal homing. The 23 kg (50 lb) WDU-33/B fragmentation warhead is detonated by an FZU-49/B fuzing system consisting of a "smart" (anti-clutter) proximity fuze and an impact fuze. The effective range of the AIM-120A of course highly depends on the firing parameters, and official performance data are classified. Typical quoted figures for maximum range vary between 50 km (30 miles) and 70 km (45 miles). For the lower portions of the AMRAAM's range envelope (minimum range is said to be 2 km (2200 yds)), where the mid-course guidance updates are not needed, the AIM-120 is a true fire-and-forget weapon. 

Non-tactical variants of the AIM-120A are the CATM-120A captive-carry training missile, the DATM-120A for ground-handling training, and the JAIM-120A with telemetry electronics for test and evaluation purposes. 

Although a few AIM-120As were deployed to the Gulf during Operation Desert Storm in early 1991, no AMRAAMs were fired in that conflict (officially, at least). The first combat use of an AIM-120A occurred in December 1992, when an F-16C shot down an Iraqi MiG-25 during Operation Southern Watch. 

The AIM-120B, which was first delivered in late 1994, had a new WGU-41/B guidance section. It had software in reprogrammable EPROM modules, a new digital processor and other electronics updates. Non-tactical versions are the CATM-120B captive-carry and JAIM-120B test and evaluation missiles.


The AMRAAM P3I (Pre-Planned Product Improvement) program led to the AIM-120C, first delivered in 1996. The major new feature of the basic AIM-120C (P3I Phase 1) are the clipped wings and fins. Although this feature was introduced to allow carriage in the internal weapons bays of the F/A-22 Raptor, the -120C can also be used from other AMRAAM-capable aircraft. The guidance unit of the AIM-120C is upgraded to WGU-44/B standard. The first P3I Phase 2 missile is the AIM-120C-4 (first delivered in 1999), which has an improved WDU-41/B warhead. The AIM-120C-5 is a C-4 with a slightly larger motor in the new WPU-16/B propulsion section and a new shorter WCU-28/B control section with compressed electronics and ECCM upgrades. Deliveries of the AIM-120C-5 began in July 2000. It was followed on the production line by the AIM-120C-6, which features an updated TDD (Target Detection Device). The AIM-120C-7 (P3I Phase 3), development of which has begun in 1998, incorporates improved ECCM with jamming detection, an upgraded seeker, and longer range. The latter feature was specifically requested by the U.S. Navy to get a (somewhat) suitable replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix very-long range missile, which was then planned to be retired together with the F-14D Tomcat around 2007 (actual official retirement was already in September 2004). The AIM-120C-7 was successfully tested against combat-realistic targets in August and September 2003, and IOC was then planned for 2004. This has slipped somewhat, but as of early 2006, the AIM-120C-7 is beginning to be fielded. Equivalent to the -120A/B, there are also CATM-120C and JAIM-120C non-tactical variants of the AIM-120C.
The AIM-120D (P3I Phase 4, formerly known as AIM-120C-8) is a development of the AIM-120C with a two-way data link, more accurate navigation using a GPS-enhanced IMU, an expanded no-escape envelope, improved HOBS (High-Angle Off-Boresight) capability, and a 50&#37; increase in range. The AIM-120D is a joint USAF/USN project, and is currently in the testing phase. First production deliveries are expected for December 2007. The CATM-120D is the inert captive-carry training version of the AIM-120D. 

More than 12000 AIM-120 missiles of all versions have been built so far, including a significant amount for non-U.S. customers. The AMRAAM can be carried by all current U.S. fighter aircraft (F-14D, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F/A-22), and is launched from LAU-127/A, -128/A or -129/A CRLs (Common Rail Launchers), which can also be used for the AIM-9 Sidewinder.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abaseen99

AIM-120C5=157KG=105KM AIM-120C7=161KG=120KM AIM-120D =?=====180KM FRENCH MICA = 60KM= 112KG ISRAELI DERBY =50KM=118KG SD-10 = 70KM=180KG


----------



## MastanKhan

Mani2020 said:


> well i have talked to and listened few people who have experience or knowledge about BVR .What i have heard from them and concluded is BVR is not the only thing when it comes to war .they all said that having BVR is no doubt a psychological advantage over enemy but it doesnot mean that this sole advantage can give you air supremacy over enemy .Even the best of BVR missile has success rate of ~25&#37;



Hi,

Most of them are listening but not respondiong to the actual question.

If such was the case about bvr's lack of enforcement---then the F 22 is a DUD----.

You have to look at @ what distance what is the so called kill ratio of the missile in question.

So---if for aim120C5---@ max range of 105 km---the kill ratio is 60%

and possibly at 75km this ratio changes to 95---99%.

So---now do the same to sd 10--at its max range of 70 km the kill ratio is 50 % and at 50 km it changes to 95-99%---

then the difference is very obvious---the missile with the longest reach / which also has better sensors will still have better results when shot in their 95% kill range.

There is so much BS about this issue---you people are educated people---have college degrees and have studied physics as well---so please someone just draw a graph of max range 105km---kill ratio at that range 60%----95-99% kill ratio range and distance 75 km---do this for all the major missile and you have the results---.

They talk about phoenix missile only good 25 % of the time is bull----if you fire it from 80--100 miles away okay it is----but why did you have to fire it from that far---- nobody was coming at you--why not find the results when this missile was fired from 50---40 or 30 miles away---that is what we need to find out.

Our concern needs to be----what is the 95% + kill range of the enemy's missile---and what is the 95% kill range of our missile---not considering other factors and then act accordingly---and find ways and means to counter that.

My concern is what is the 90% + max effective killing range of my enemy's weapons---max ranges mean nothing---.

Have you people looked at your cars speedometer lately---and what is the top end speed that you can actually drive at----.


"MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE---IN ORDER FOR IT TO WORK---YOU HAVE TO OPEN IT"---Bob Woolmer

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chogy

It is only normal that these extreme-ranged, complex BVR missiles will not have the reliability and Pk that a simpler, short-ranged IR missile is going to have.

It's much greater than 25&#37;, but I don't know that I'd ever say >95%. Even when launch parameters are perfect, a given % of ANY type of missile will simply fail at launch, have internal problems. But even the latest AIM-7 variants (especially the M) were lethal, and the AIM-120 and other more modern missiles even more so.

One of my favorite links just for the data... the last larger-scaled air war to date, from the first Gulf War 1991. Note that there were more AIM-7 kills than AIM-9.

A 2:1 ration, AIM-7 vs AIM-9. This shows that radar-guided missiles ARE very effective.

Gulf War I kills

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Chogy

Double post


----------



## SQ8

Out of those kills.. 
The failure rate for the sparrow was still high..
Compared to the Aim-120..


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

What we are not taking into account is the difference in what was made yesterday and what is being manufactured today---today's technology and electronics are a million times more advanced than what was available in the 70's.

Truly---a conflict---an air battle between pakistan and india will set the standards of air combat for the future of the world---two adversaries---who will fight till death does them apart---high tech weapons and planes on both the sides---the world air forces would be watching with anticipation---.

A true battleground for bvr and high tech electronic warfare for two third world countries brandishing first world weaponery.


----------



## Donatello

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> What we are not taking into account is the difference in what was made yesterday and what is being manufactured today---today's technology and electronics are a million times more advanced than what was available in the 70's.
> 
> Truly---a conflict---an air battle between pakistan and india will set the standards of air combat for the future of the world---two adversaries---who will fight till death does them apart---high tech weapons and planes on both the sides---the world air forces would be watching with anticipation---.
> 
> A true battleground for bvr and high tech electronic warfare for two third world countries brandishing first world weaponery.





Lets raise our hands and pray, that, such time of war never comes.
Both sides will lose badly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## rockstarIN

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> What we are not taking into account is the difference in what was made yesterday and what is being manufactured today---today's technology and electronics are a million times more advanced than what was available in the 70's.
> 
> Truly---a conflict---an air battle between pakistan and india will set the standards of air combat for the future of the world---two adversaries---who will fight till death does them apart---high tech weapons and planes on both the sides---the world air forces would be watching with anticipation---.
> 
> A true battleground for bvr and high tech electronic warfare for two third world countries brandishing first world weaponery.



Not only that, it will see the Russian technology in BVR being put into battle in larger scale for the first time..


----------



## m.faisalfani

_nice Brother_


----------



## Super Falcon

i think SD 10 is god enough to destroy any indian jet but can it be jammed or not is a big question mark on the SD 10 missiles future

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

rockstar said:


> Not only that, it will see the Russian technology in BVR being put into battle in larger scale for the first time..



Sir,

Please accept my apologies for not mentioning the russian technology---even though inadvetrantly, it was included.


----------



## rockstarIN

MastanKhan said:


> Sir,
> 
> Please accept my apologies for not mentioning the russian technology---even though inadvetrantly, it was included.



Sir,

I just post something which I thought is a point, knowledge sharing and a contribution in this open forum, what do mean by apologizing for that? I always think it is a good platform to share ideas, nothing more.

Rgds,


----------



## Mani2020

Posted from a Chinese forum ,using google translator

*SD-10B will have a reduced volume weight*
*Although the excellent performance of SD-10A, but there are some of the shortcomings of the missile*, and the United States in the distance AIM-120 Missile (AIM-120A weighs only 157 kg) than its larger size and weight obviously, so with smaller aircraft in combat a greater impact on its performance. &#22914;&#37197;&#22791;&#22312;JF-17&#26426;&#32764;&#38752;&#36817;&#22806;&#20391;&#30340;&#25346;&#26550;&#26102;&#65292;&#38656;&#35201;&#25346;&#26550;&#21069;&#20280;&#20197;&#35843;&#33410;&#37325;&#24515;&#12290; *If equipped with the JF-17 near the outer wing pylons, the pylons need to reach to adjust focus.* &#36824;&#26377;&#19968;&#28857;&#19981;&#23481;&#24573;&#35270;&#30340;&#26159;&#20013;&#22269;&#27491;&#22312;&#30740;&#21046;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26007;&#26426;&#65292;&#23626;&#26102;&#23558;&#37319;&#29992;&#20869;&#22475;&#24377;&#33329;&#20197;&#25552;&#39640;&#39134;&#26426;&#30340;&#38544;&#36523;&#33021;&#21147;&#12290; Another point should not be overlooked is the fourth-generation fighter aircraft being developed, will be buried inside the bomb bay used to enhance the aircraft's stealth capabilities. &#22914;&#26524;&#20307;&#31215;&#36739;&#22823;&#65292;&#23558;&#30452;&#25509;&#24433;&#21709;&#20013;&#22269;&#31532;&#22235;&#20195;&#25112;&#26007;&#26426;&#30340;&#36733;&#24377;&#37327;&#65292;&#25152;&#20197;SD-10B&#20316;&#20026;&#19968;&#27454;&#26410;&#26469;&#23558;&#37197;&#22791;&#22269;&#20135;&#22235;&#20195;&#26426;&#30340;&#31354;&#31354;&#23548;&#24377;&#38500;&#20102;&#35201;&#36827;&#34892;&#24615;&#33021;&#19978;&#30340;&#24517;&#35201;&#25552;&#21319;&#22806;&#65292;&#36824;&#35201;&#21644;AIM-120C&#31995;&#21015;&#19968;&#26679;&#65292;&#23545;&#23548;&#24377;&#30340;&#20307;&#31215;&#21644;&#37325;&#37327;&#36827;&#34892;&#20102;&#19968;&#23450;&#30340;&#32553;&#20943;&#65292;&#20197;&#25552;&#39640;&#23548;&#24377;&#30340;&#36866;&#36733;&#33539;&#22260;&#21644;&#25346;&#36733;&#33021;&#21147;&#12290; If larger, it will directly affect China's fourth-generation fighter load of bombs, so the SD-10B made as a four generations of the future will be equipped with machine-air missiles in addition to the need to improve on the performance, but also, and AIM- 120C series, as the size and weight of the missile, which must be reduced to improve the relevance of the missile range and mount capability set

*SD-10B may be equipped with the Active / Passive Composite Seeker*

*SD-10B is said the most striking is its use of the "active / passive" composite terminal guidance system, be pointed out that in the long range air to air missile with passive guidance capability, which is the source of interference guidance system, that is, the process of missile attack interference in the cast if the target, the missile guidance antenna conversion receiver interference signal to attack the source of interference*. &#19981;&#36807;&#20174;&#25253;&#36947;&#20998;&#26512;&#65292;SD-10B&#24212;&#35813;&#27809;&#26377;&#37319;&#29992;&#24178;&#25200;&#28304;&#21046;&#23548;&#36825;&#31181;&#26041;&#24335;&#65292;&#32780;&#26159;&#20351;&#29992;&#20102;&#20027;/&#34987;&#21160;&#22797;&#21512;&#21046;&#23548;&#23548;&#24341;&#22836;&#65292;&#23454;&#38469;&#19978;SD-10B&#24182;&#19981;&#26159;&#31532;&#19968;&#20010;&#35745;&#21010;&#37319;&#29992;&#36825;&#31181;&#23548;&#24341;&#22836;&#30340;&#31354;&#31354;&#23548;&#24377;&#65292;AIM-120&#23601;&#26366;&#32463;&#35745;&#21010;&#21152;&#35013;&#34987;&#21160;&#38647;&#36798;&#23548;&#24341;&#22836;&#65292;&#32780;&#20420;&#32599;&#26031;&#20063;&#26366;&#32463;&#30740;&#21046;&#25104;&#21151;&#30740;&#21046;&#20986;9B-1032&#34987;&#21160;&#38647;&#36798;&#23548;&#24341;&#22836;&#65292;&#37197;&#22791;&#22312;R-27&#23548;&#24377;&#19978;&#38754;&#65292;&#19981;&#36807;&#25913;&#36827;&#21518;&#30340;R-27&#21482;&#26159;&#21333;&#32431;&#34987;&#21160;&#21046;&#23548;&#26041;&#24335;&#12290; But from the reports and analysis, SD-10B should not be guided by the source of interference in this way, but the use of the Active / Passive Composite Seeker, in fact, is not the first SD-10B plan to use this air to air missile seeker , AIM-120 was planned to install a passive radar seeker, and Russia has also been developed successfully developed 9B-1032 passive radar seeker, is equipped with top of the R-27 missiles, but improved simply a passive R-27 guidance system

Source of guidance and interference is different from Active / Passive Composite Seeker add passive guidance system is to receive each other's airborne radar waves, requires a one-way passive receiver to receive signals, so the signal strength of radio signals over high bidirectional transmission of radar, this very on increasing the radar's power, under the radar range equation, radar detection range and the present transmission power is proportional to, and limited internal space for air to air missile, it is difficult to improve transmission power, so adding a passive radar guidance system can be improved to some extent terminal guidance radar detection range.

But its also great technical difficulties, the first frequency of the passive guidance system wide, less accuracy, especially in airborne radar target is a high speed, next-generation active phased array radar and uses flash and burst, etc. low probability of intercept mode, so the new primary air to air missile / passive guidance system requires the ability both to work simultaneously in order to improve target location accuracy.

There is limited space within the same missile body furnished master / passive guidance system is difficult, the current solution is the Active / Passive guidance systems share a common antenna to form a composite broadband antenna, and also solve the broadband antenna cover, high sensitivity Broadband receivers and other technical difficulties, in particular, there are two guidance systems work simultaneously to solve two kinds of guidance information, information fusion problem. &#25152;&#20197;&#30446;&#21069;&#36824;&#27809;&#26377;&#30456;&#20851;&#31995;&#32479;&#25237;&#20837;&#23454;&#29992;&#30340;&#25253;&#36947;&#12290; So there is no related systems into useful reports. &#22914;&#26524;SD-10B&#30495;&#30340;&#37197;&#22791;&#26159;&#36825;&#31181;&#23548;&#24341;&#22836;&#65292;&#37027;&#30340;&#30830;&#26159;&#20013;&#22269;&#23548;&#24377;&#25216;&#26415;&#27700;&#24179;&#19968;&#20010;&#37325;&#22823;&#30340;&#31361;&#30772;&#12290; If the SD-10B is equipped with this is the true seeker, it is indeed a significant level of Chinese missile technology breakthrough.


*Pakistan Air Force in the use of SD-10B from the air to air missiles means Xiaolong fighter will continue to use China's avionics system, the future Xiaolong fighter will be equipped with active phased array rada*r, in line with China forward in the ZDK-03 Pakistan-based early warning aircraft bound to a substantial increase in air combat aircraft performance, and the formation of a new generation of air combat system. &#23626;&#26102;&#26541;&#40857;&#25112;&#26426;&#20063;&#23558;&#23436;&#20840;&#21487;&#20197;&#23545;&#25239;&#35013;&#22791;&#26377;BARS&#26080;&#28304;&#30456;&#25511;&#38453;&#38647;&#36798;&#21644;R-77E&#20013;&#36317;&#31354;&#31354;&#23548;&#24377;&#30340;&#21360;&#24230;&#31354;&#20891;&#33487;-30MKI&#25112;&#26007;&#26426;&#65292;&#20174;&#32780;&#22823;&#22823;&#25913;&#21892;&#30446;&#21069;&#24052;&#22522;&#26031;&#22374;&#22312;&#21360;&#24052;&#31354;&#20891;&#23545;&#27604;&#20013;&#30340;&#21155;&#21183;&#22788;&#22659;&#12290; *Xiaolong fighters will also be fully equipped with BARS against the passive phased array radar and the R-77E air to air missiles in the Indian Air Force from the Su-30MKI fighters, which greatly improve the contrast of Pakistan Air Force in the India-Pakistan situation of disadvantage.
*
&#32780;&#21333;&#20174;&#24615;&#33021;&#19978;&#26469;&#30475;&#65292;SD-10B&#37325;&#37327;&#22312;180&#20844;&#26020;&#24038;&#21491;&#65292;&#26368;&#22823;&#21160;&#21147;&#23556;&#31243;&#32422;100&#20844;&#37324;&#65292;&#20316;&#25112;&#24615;&#33021;&#24212;&#35813;&#19982;&#32654;&#20891;&#29616;&#24441;AIM-120C5&#30456;&#24403;&#65292;&#19982;&#32654;&#22269;&#26368;&#26032;&#22411;&#30340;AIM-120C7&#21644;&#22312;&#30740;&#30340;AIM-120D&#20173;&#26377;&#36739;&#22823;&#24046;&#36317;&#12290; And just from the performance point of view, SD-10B weight of 180 kg, the maximum dynamic range of about 100 kilometers, the U.S. military operational performance should be quite active AIM-120C5, and the United States, the latest model of AIM-120C7 and AIM-120D in the study of there is still a wide gap.


----------



## MastanKhan

Mani2020: Pakistan Air Force in the use of SD-10B from the air to air missiles means Xiaolong fighter will continue to use China's avionics system, the future Xiaolong fighter will be equipped with active phased array radar, in line with China forward in the ZDK-03 Pakistan-based early warning aircraft bound to a substantial increase in air combat aircraft performance, and the formation of a new generation of air combat system. &#23626;&#26102;&#26541;&#40857;&#25112;&#26426;&#20063;&#23558;&#23436;&#20840;&#21487;&#20197;&#23545;&#25239;&#35013;&#22791;&#26377;BARS&#26080;&#28304;&#30456;&#25511;&#38453;&#38647;&#36798;&#21644;R-77E&#20013;&#36317;&#31354;&#31354;&#23548;&#24377;&#30340;&#21360;&#24230;&#31354;&#20891;&#33487;-30MKI&#25112;&#26007;&#26426;&#65292;&#20174;&#32780;&#22823;&#22823;&#25913;&#21892;&#30446;&#21069;&#24052;&#22522;&#26031;&#22374;&#22312;&#21360;&#24052;&#31354;&#20891;&#23545;&#27604;&#20013;&#30340;&#21155;&#21183;&#22788;&#22659;&#12290; Xiaolong fighters will also be fully equipped with BARS against the passive phased array radar and the R-77E air to air missiles in the Indian Air Force from the Su-30MKI fighters, which greatly improve the contrast of Pakistan Air Force in the India-Pakistan situation of disadvantage.

Mani,

Thanks for the post----this para needs to be deciphered---what does this really mean!


----------



## farhan_9909

Sd-10B has a 100KM range bt sad our Klj-7 radar range is 105km..its range should be atleast 160km


----------



## rockstarIN

farhan_9909 said:


> Sd-10B has a 100KM range bt sad our Klj-7 radar range is 105km..its range should be atleast 160km



Enough man, nobody fires missiles @100-150 km range


----------



## Mani2020

> *Mastan Khan*
> 
> Mani,
> 
> Thanks for the post----this para needs to be deciphered---what does this really mean!





MK i also don't know actually i found it ,google translator was able to translate only those lines which i have posted ,rest of the lines were not translated i don't know the reason but atleast that is all i know.You can try google translator may be it will work for you or Chinese members can better tell us what is written in those un-translated lines


----------



## nightcrawler

I badly need a photo of BVR(AiM/Sd) armed PAF plane


----------



## Penguin

rockstar said:


> Enough man, nobody fires missiles @100-150 km range



Sure?

AIM-54 Range: In excess of 100 nautical miles (120 mi; 190 km)
AIM-54 Phoenix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AIM-152 Range : 185 km+
AIM-152 AAAM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vympel R-33 (160 km), R-33E (130 km), R-33S (228 km)
R-33 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AA-10 Alamo
R-27ER: up to 130 km
R-27ET: up to 120 km
R-27AE up to 130 km
R-27EM: up to 170km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile)

AA-12 Adder
R-77M1 up to 160km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-77_(missile)

MBDA Meteor : 100+ km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## rockstarIN

Penguin said:


> Sure?
> 
> AIM-54 Range: In excess of 100 nautical miles (120 mi; 190 km)
> AIM-54 Phoenix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> AIM-152 Range : 185 km+
> AIM-152 AAAM - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Vympel R-33 (160 km), R-33E (130 km), R-33S (228 km)
> R-33 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> AA-10 Alamo
> R-27ER: up to 130 km
> R-27ET: up to 120 km
> R-27AE up to 130 km
> R-27EM: up to 170km
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air-to-air_missile)
> 
> AA-12 Adder
> R-77M1 up to 160km
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-77_(missile)
> 
> MBDA Meteor : 100+ km
> MBDA Meteor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



My point was nobody fire missiles to a maneuverable target from the distance - 100+ even if the range is more than 100. 

Got it? 
Range varies in different altitudes.


----------



## jagjitnatt

farhan_9909 said:


> Sd-10B has a 100KM range bt sad our Klj-7 radar range is 105km..its range should be atleast 160km



100 km is the *MAX DYNAMIC* range. It doesn't mean it will hit the target at that range. It means that under the favorable circumstances of 
- high altitude of 10-12000 meters
- no cross winds
- launch velocity of 1.5+ Mach
- no Maneuvering

it will be able to cover a distance of 100 kms. But in a real scenario where all this won't be possible, this missile won't do any more than 50-60 kms. And to get a kill, you'll need to get even closer.

So the JF-17 radar isn't a bottleneck.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PRACTICAL PATRIOT

jagjitnatt said:


> 100 km is the *MAX DYNAMIC* range. It doesn't mean it will hit the target at that range. It means that under the favorable circumstances of
> - high altitude of 10-12000 meters
> - no cross winds
> - launch velocity of 1.5+ Mach
> - no Maneuvering
> 
> it will be able to cover a distance of 100 kms. But in a real scenario where all this won't be possible, this missile won't do any more than 50-60 kms. And to get a kill, you'll need to get even closer.
> 
> So the JF-17 radar isn't a bottleneck.


nice informative post 
btw i really admire your posts

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MZUBAIR

Who ever say ...wt ever........

I dont care.....coz *I m happy, that we have both SD-10 and AIM-120*


----------



## Penguin

> On January 5, 1999, a pair of U.S. F-14s fired two AIM-54 at Iraqi MiG-25s southeast of Baghdad. Both AIM-54s' rocket motors failed and neither missile hit its target.
> 
> On September 9, 1999 another U.S. F-14 launched an AIM-54 at an Iraqi MiG-23 that was heading south into the No-Fly Zone from Al Taqaddum air base west of Baghdad. The missile missed, eventually going into the ground after the Iraqi fighter reversed course and sped back north.


AIM-54 Phoenix - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tempest II

I am interested here in the "greater than Mach 5" speed!! .... ... and how it relates to the range considering it is "only greater than 70km". I want to bring this speed in the discussion and how it comapres with other missiles and their ranges.


----------



## Tempest II

At 156kg and Mach 4, the maximum kinetic energy for the AIM-120 = 144.481 megajoules.

At 199kg and Mach 5, the maximum kinetic energy for the SD-10 = 287.555 megajoules.

The SD-10 has twice the kinetic energy and with an indentical body (???) *it is interesting that the SD-10 will not have at least the same range!!!*

Any thoughts?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaimiKhan

I believe the Chinese are providing the 70KM or so range version of the SD-10 on the international market, while for their own use, they are having a more ranged version of the SD-10. Since the start of this missile program or for years, the 70KM range is being quoted, its for sure that in so many years they would have increased the range of their missile to atleast 100KM or even more, as suggested in some of the Chinese sources that SD-10 with 100KM range has been tested or may be operational.

Plus, if we look at the figures in the above pic, the altitude range is 0-21KM and range is 70KM, what my understanding is, it means if the missile is fired from a ground station at 0 KM then it can go to a height or altitude of 21KM and range of 70KM (maximum performance), thus if you imagine it on a graph like page, it has to fly up (vertical slope wise) to 21Km and horizontally 70Km, which in reality would mean a lot of distance covered, since the missile has to travel vertically as well as horizontally. But if the missile is launched from an aircraft at lets say 10K feet on a target also hovering at 10K or 9K feet, then the missile has to fly in nearly a straight horizontal flight path, thus its energy of going vertical flight path would be saved, meaning it can cover more ground resulting in greater range then 70KM, may be even 90KM or more. 

This is my understanding, as these figures mean the maximum performance the missile can give if launched at its maximum altitude from 0KM to 21Km, it can achieve a range of 70KM, if it is fired from an aerial target at a certain height, then it can cover more range as there would be no flight path or vertical distance to achieve. 

Hope, i made some sense.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## monitor

sir can it possible to have a SD-10 ground launch version like aim-120 with extended range ?


----------



## Mani2020

monitor said:


> sir can it possible to have a SD-10 ground launch version like aim-120 with extended range ?



Yes
this might help you



> Like the AIM-120 AMRAAM, PL-12 is also used as SAM, and tests have already successfully completed as the possible replacement of LY-60, but such system has not entered service because China has already been developing the vertical launched version. The vertical launching system is developed by the Luoyang Optronic Technological Development Center in Henan, and the system is called CCL, short for Concentric Cylindrical Launcher, which is similar to American Mk 48 VLS in appearance, but due to the very limited information publicized, it is difficult to tell if the Chinese VLS is a "cold launch" system or a "hot launch" system like that of American Mk 48 VLS.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tempest II

TaimiKhan said:


> as suggested in some of the Chinese sources that SD-10 with 100KM range has been tested or may be operational.



Thanks for the responce. yes, I remember that now - it was a report mention some exercise a, I believe with J-10s, launching missiles with range over 100km (or was it 110km?).

Thanks.


----------



## jagjitnatt

TaimiKhan said:


> I believe the Chinese are providing the 70KM or so range version of the SD-10 on the international market, while for their own use, they are having a more ranged version of the SD-10. Since the start of this missile program or for years, the 70KM range is being quoted, its for sure that in so many years they would have increased the range of their missile to atleast 100KM or even more, as suggested in some of the Chinese sources that SD-10 with 100KM range has been tested or may be operational.



There is just one version of SD-10A, and it has a range of 70 kms. They are not developing several versions, just for different customers.
About the ranges, its 70 kms, and it has not been upgraded. Let the missile be mass produced. Its a new missile and it won't be upgraded so quickly. Other versions of the missile with more range are in development. But they are not SD-10A missiles.

So the specs of this missile are frozen.


TaimiKhan said:


> Plus, if we look at the figures in the above pic, the altitude range is 0-21KM and range is 70KM, what my understanding is, it means if the missile is fired from a ground station at 0 KM then it can go to a height or altitude of 21KM and range of 70KM (maximum performance), thus if you imagine it on a graph like page, it has to fly up (vertical slope wise) to 21Km and horizontally 70Km, which in reality would mean a lot of distance covered, since the missile has to travel vertically as well as horizontally. But if the missile is launched from an aircraft at lets say 10K feet on a target also hovering at 10K or 9K feet, then the missile has to fly in nearly a straight horizontal flight path, thus its energy of going vertical flight path would be saved, meaning it can cover more ground resulting in greater range then 70KM, may be even 90KM or more.


Let me try to explain how missile ranges are calculated. The missile is tested in favorable conditions, which are:
- no cross winds
- altitude of launch somewhere around 14-18 kms
- launch velocity of Mach 1.5+
- straight trajectory

Under these circumstances the range is 70 kms. Under normal conditions, the range won't be greater than 50 kms. And if you've studied something about missiles, you'll see that missile ranges drop drastically with lower altitudes.
Range at ground level would be less than 15 kms for SD10A.

Let me show you what you are saying. You are saying that the missile would first gain altitude, and then travel horizontally towards the target. But that is not possible because in vertical flight, the target would move out of missile's seeker range, and the missile would lose its track.
Even if missile is fired from the ground, and it moves straight towards the target, the distance traveled would be 74 kms. (21 km altitude + 70 kms distance). This can be calculated by simple pythagoras theorem.

So what you are trying to say is not correct.



TaimiKhan said:


> This is my understanding, as these figures mean the maximum performance the missile can give if launched at its maximum altitude from 0KM to 21Km, it can achieve a range of 70KM, if it is fired from an aerial target at a certain height, then it can cover more range as there would be no flight path or vertical distance to achieve.
> 
> Hope, i made some sense.



70 kms is the maximum range, under favorable conditions. The figures for AIM120, and R77 are also calculated in such conditions, which is why no missile is fired from 100 kms. 

I am not trying to say SD-10A is a bad missile, I am just clearing somethings that should be clear to all on a defense forum. I hope you'll take my post in the right spirit.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## jagjitnatt

Tempest II said:


> At 156kg and Mach 4, the maximum kinetic energy for the AIM-120 = 144.481 megajoules.
> 
> At 199kg and Mach 5, the maximum kinetic energy for the SD-10 = 287.555 megajoules.
> 
> The SD-10 has twice the kinetic energy and with an indentical body (???) *it is interesting that the SD-10 will not have at least the same range!!!*
> 
> Any thoughts?



You just answered yourself.

AIM-120 is a lighter missile, and travels at a lower speed, so it needs to spend less energy to travel its distance. Hence a lower kinetic energy.

Remember, Kinetic energy gained by missile = energy spent by propulsion system to propel the missile forward.

In case of SD-10A, the missile is heavier, and travels at a higher speed, so that means it is spending a lot more energy when compared to AIM-120, and since its carrying just as much fuel, it would run out of fuel earlier.

You can also take example of Brahmos, which is a supersonic missile, but has a short range, and other missiles like Tomahawk, which are subsonic but have much longer ranges.


----------



## jagjitnatt

monitor said:


> sir can it possible to have a SD-10 ground launch version like aim-120 with extended range ?



You can convert any AAM into a SAM, but the range of the missile would be reduced by at least 40% due to drag at lower altitudes.


----------



## Tempest II

jagjitnatt said:


> You just answered yourself.
> 
> AIM-120 is a lighter missile, and travels at a lower speed, so it needs to spend less energy to travel its distance. Hence a lower kinetic energy.
> 
> Remember, Kinetic energy gained by missile = energy spent by propulsion system to propel the missile forward.
> 
> In case of SD-10A, the missile is heavier, and travels at a higher speed, so that means it is spending a lot more energy when compared to AIM-120, and since its carrying just as much fuel, it would run out of fuel earlier.
> 
> You can also take example of Brahmos, which is a supersonic missile, but has a short range, and other missiles like Tomahawk, which are subsonic but have much longer ranges.



Thanks for joining the discussion. I think I understand you explation. You are saying the AIM-120 has a longer power time than the SD-10? While the SD-10 reaches the top speed, it then relies on glide more than the AIM-120.


----------



## jagjitnatt

Tempest II said:


> Thanks for joining the discussion. I think I understand you explation. You are saying the AIM-120 has a longer power time than the SD-10? While the SD-10 reaches the top speed, it then relies on glide more than the AIM-120.



Yes. You can say that. I'd love to get into more detail, like how drag increases at such speeds, and how it affects the performance of the missile, how much fuel is consumed, and what are the efficiencies at different speeds, but I guess it takes a LOT of time, and I gotta write a LOT for it. I wish I could do a video on it. May be someday I will.


----------



## TaimiKhan

jagjitnatt said:


> There is just one version of SD-10A, and it has a range of 70 kms. They are not developing several versions, just for different customers.
> About the ranges, its 70 kms, and it has not been upgraded. Let the missile be mass produced. Its a new missile and it won't be upgraded so quickly. Other versions of the missile with more range are in development. But they are not SD-10A missiles.
> 
> So the specs of this missile are frozen.
> 
> Let me try to explain how missile ranges are calculated. The missile is tested in favorable conditions, which are:
> - no cross winds
> - altitude of launch somewhere around 14-18 kms
> - launch velocity of Mach 1.5+
> - straight trajectory
> 
> Under these circumstances the range is 70 kms. Under normal conditions, the range won't be greater than 50 kms. And if you've studied something about missiles, you'll see that missile ranges drop drastically with lower altitudes.
> Range at ground level would be less than 15 kms for SD10A.
> 
> Let me show you what you are saying. You are saying that the missile would first gain altitude, and then travel horizontally towards the target. But that is not possible because in vertical flight, the target would move out of missile's seeker range, and the missile would lose its track.
> Even if missile is fired from the ground, and it moves straight towards the target, the distance traveled would be 74 kms. (21 km altitude + 70 kms distance). This can be calculated by simple pythagoras theorem.
> 
> So what you are trying to say is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 70 kms is the maximum range, under favorable conditions. The figures for AIM120, and R77 are also calculated in such conditions, which is why no missile is fired from 100 kms.
> 
> I am not trying to say SD-10A is a bad missile, I am just clearing somethings that should be clear to all on a defense forum. I hope you'll take my post in the right spirit.



Taking the past experience, i would say, yeah am wrong and you are completely correct. 

On the other hand i wonder, where has it been mentioned that SD-10A design has been frozen, as we had recently started to hear about the SD-10B from some good and reliable sources who got this designation/info from PAF contingent directly at Zhuhai, that a newer and better version of SD-10 is gonna be inducted, either you are wrong or the PAF contingent is lying. Again, i wonder, why would the Chinese have to give the SD-10A designation if the specifications were frozen, why not keep SD-10 simple, why add A. 

Why have the Chinese A & B versions of the PL-8 or the B, C & E / EII designated versions of PL-5 or the simple PL-9 & then C designated versions. 

Below is Jane's latest article about SD-10 missile and they did not said its frozen or something like that, rather says that SD-10A is the current production model and main theme is that the capabilities of the missile as for known may be less then what actually they may be, so even in this one month back article, doubts are being shown about what the possible specifications of the missile would be. In simple words, we don't even know the real specifications of this missile and you have frozen the missile specifications and stopped the future advanced versions right now. 

China discloses new SD-10 combat capabilities

Even the Chinese in defence exhibitions write Range >70Km , meaning the range is not exactly 70KM, it can be greater. Chinese, don't stop at one thing, they keep on improving till there is space of improvement and SD-10 has plenty of space left in it to be improved. The range of 100KM is being quoted at many places and the source is being said to be some official PLA magazine, hope some Chinese member can throw some light on it. 

So, in the end we don't know what the real specifications of the SD-10A are, has the specifications been frozen or not and the newer version of the missile coming or not would be solved in few months time, but i can assure you that PAF is not getting the SD-10A with just 70KM range, its more. 

But i would agree that the range from land of such systems is less, SD-10A launched from land would be having a range of 25KM or so, thanks for correcting that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## notorious_eagle

To add more Taimi Bhai, the basic version of SD10 with a range of 70km was tested in 2007 on a Mirage. It was outright rejected not based on the range but due to its inferior seeker and the missile was easily jammed. PAF's engineers that are based in Chengdu had previously tested the AMRAAM and other European Options, they brought their experience and knowledge and worked along side with our Chinese partners and further improved the missile. 

Result: SD10A and than later S10B which is going to be the standard BVRAAM on JF17 for the time being. The Chinese never freeze a design, they run simultaneous projects because they have the necessary financial and technical resources required to. Look at their Aviation Projects; they are running simultaneous projects for J10, JF17 and J20. Engine is one aspect where they lack and that is why they running multiple projects such as WS 13, WS 10 and WS 15. Its quite evident to me that in future China and United States will be the primary producers of military technology, Europe and Russia simply cannot compete on equal footing anymore.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jagjitnatt

TaimiKhan said:


> On the other hand i wonder, where has it been mentioned that SD-10A design has been frozen, as we had recently started to hear about the SD-10B from some good and reliable sources who got this designation/info from PAF contingent directly at Zhuhai, that a newer and better version of SD-10 is gonna be inducted, either you are wrong or the PAF contingent is lying. Again, i wonder, why would the Chinese have to give the SD-10A designation if the specifications were frozen, why not keep SD-10 simple, why add A.



Alright, so you yourself said that the new missile is development is named the SD-10B, now that is what I had said.
The SD-10A's range will remain 70 kms. Although newer versions of it will be in development, they won't be named SD-10A, they would be SD-10B, then C, then D, and so on.

That means the specs of the missile are frozen, any missile that moves into mass production has their specs frozen. The newer missile with higher range would be called SD-10B, but the range of SD-10A will always remain 70 kms. And these missiles would co-exist. SD-10B would be a newer product.

It happens in every country, every business, the product keeps evolving, it doesn't mean that the specs are not frozen. The newer specs result in a newer product. For eg F-16s. When PAF bought them, they were F-16A, the development continued, and C/D, E/F variants came out, but they were new products, the specs of the aircraft in PAF's inventory remained the same. They didn't change. I hope you got my point.




TaimiKhan said:


> But i would agree that the range from land of such systems is less, SD-10A launched from land would be having a range of 25KM or so, thanks for correcting that.


Thank you.


----------



## TaimiKhan

notorious_eagle said:


> To add more Taimi Bhai, the basic version of SD10 with a range of 70km was tested in 2007 on a Mirage. It was outright rejected not based on the range but due to its inferior seeker and the missile was easily jammed. PAF's engineers that are based in Chengdu had previously tested the AMRAAM and other European Options, they brought their experience and knowledge and worked along side with our Chinese partners and further improved the missile.
> 
> Result: SD10A and than later S10B which is going to be the standard BVRAAM on JF17 for the time being. The Chinese never freeze a design, they run simultaneous projects because they have the necessary financial and technical resources required to. Look at their Aviation Projects; they are running simultaneous projects for J10, JF17 and J20. Engine is one aspect where they lack and that is why they running multiple projects such as WS 13, WS 10 and WS 15. Its quite evident to me that in future China and United States will be the primary producers of military technology, Europe and Russia simply cannot compete on equal footing anymore.



Do remember the South African link in this development. They have a hand in this too.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## d7o0ome_04

Default SD-10 vs AIM-120 (Latest versions) 

hahaha nice joke
if we talking abot latest versions we talk abot aim-120 d


----------



## Tempest II

jagjitnatt said:


> Yes. You can say that. I'd love to get into more detail, like how drag increases at such speeds, and how it affects the performance of the missile, how much fuel is consumed, and what are the efficiencies at different speeds, but I guess it takes a LOT of time, and I gotta write a LOT for it. I wish I could do a video on it. May be someday I will.



I do understand (not the maths of it but I can visualise the physics) that the more speed, the more wind resistance, drag, turbulance, etc. It fact when I asked the question the first time, I was expecting that the answer will come more along the lines of increased drag/turbulance. 

I also understand the effects of altitude and speed of the launch platform. 

I will try to find the PLA article that mentions the over 100km range.


----------



## Tempest II

OK, the PLA news article mentioning the >100km is quoted here: ??????-10??????????100??_??_??? . While I don't see where it actiually says PL-12 or SD-10, I am assuming that is the only MRAAM for the J-10s unlike their Flankers which use Russian missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dazzler

SD-10= 70 km

SD-10A=90-100 km

SD-10B=130-150km

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tempest II

nabil_05 said:


> SD-10= 70 km
> 
> SD-10A=90-100 km
> 
> SD-10B=130-150km



Interesting. Have you got more into?


----------



## AUz

SD-10*B* = *130km-150km* 

Any reliable source sir??? 

I would be great.200 JF-17 thunders loaded with SD-10*Bs* having range of ~ 145km  

It will be provide a great punch for PAF


----------



## jagjitnatt

nabil_05 said:


> SD-10= 70 km
> 
> SD-10A=90-100 km
> 
> SD-10B=130-150km



That is SUPER optimism according to me.
If that is the case, then SD-10C will be 200 km, and SD-10D will be 250 km, and soon we will have missiles that will have 500 km range. lol.

Range doesn't always increase in newer versions. There is a limit after which increasing range requires a lot of technical research, and for every km of range increased, the cost of research starts to increase 5x.

So SD-10A = 70kms, and at max SD-10B = 90 kms


----------



## SomeGuy

I think SD-10C will be up to 100km

I think SD-10D will be ramjet powered and be 100+km.


----------



## monitor

jagjitnatt said:


> You can convert any AAM into a SAM, but the range of the missile would be reduced by at least 40% due to drag at lower altitudes.



is there any ways to keep the range intact by suppose by increasing fuel by extending the missile size/diameter or by any other means .


----------



## notorious_eagle

Whats this crazy fetish with range; the seeker, electronics, PK and manuverability/agility of the missile are far more important especially in our case. No pilot in his right mind will fire his missile at the maximum range, an opposing well trained pilot would easily defeat incoming missiles fired at maximum range since missiles loose kinematic energy quite fast. In my opinion, since both India and Pakistan are right next to each other the kill zone would be around 30-40km. Its essential that Pakistani pilots still continue to train and maintain their excellence in WVR arena, our PG's and F16's are deadly in WVR and impossible to beat. I fear that with the introduction of BVR planes in our inventory, our pilots might loose their skills when it comes to the WVR arena. 

I have been quoted the range of SD10B in excess of 100km, and i believe the PAF's contingent at China also revealed the same range. What i love about this missile is its ability to go both active or passive, its certinely going to make the JF17 even more lethal. Its only logical to assume at the pace China is progressing in every field, they are producing missiles as good as Russia and in future they will outclass every country except the United States.


----------



## Tempest II

jagjitnatt said:


> Range doesn't always increase in newer versions.



I agree that not every version will bring an increase in range. Some versions will just improve the sensor, or fuse or warhead, or anti-jamming cababilities. Consider that PL-5B and C both have a maximum of 16km. PL-5E and PL-5EII both have a maximum of 18km although the EII version has an improved sensor over the E.

I also believe the PL-12 and SD-10 difference is more on the sensors and communications instead of the range or warhead.


----------



## Tempest II

notorious_eagle said:


> Whats this crazy fetish with range; the seeker, electronics, PK and manuverability/agility of the missile are far more important especially in our case. No pilot in his right mind will fire his missile at the maximum range, an opposing well trained pilot would easily defeat incoming missiles fired at maximum range since missiles loose kinematic energy quite fast. In my opinion, since both India and Pakistan are right next to each other the kill zone would be around 30-40km. Its essential that Pakistani pilots still continue to train and maintain their excellence in WVR arena, our PG's and F16's are deadly in WVR and impossible to beat. I fear that with the introduction of BVR planes in our inventory, our pilots might loose their skills when it comes to the WVR arena.
> 
> I have been quoted the range of SD10B in excess of 100km, and i believe the PAF's contingent at China also revealed the same range. What i love about this missile is its ability to go both active or passive, its certinely going to make the JF17 even more lethal. Its only logical to assume at the pace China is progressing in every field, they are producing missiles as good as Russia and in future they will outclass every country except the United States.



I agree that there are other characteristics of a missile just as important as the range. It is ok to debate/try and verify to the best of what is available the range. 

Tactically I believe it might not be that stupid to fire a missile at maximum range. Lets say Blue and Red are clossing in, both have 4 MRAAMs. Blue can fire at a maximum of 100km with a very low hit probability if Red take evassive actions. Red can only fire at 70km. If Blue fires one missile as close as possible to 70km, Red will be forced to maneuver to avoid the missile and stop trying to lock on Blue. As soon as the missile misses or as soon as Blue's sensors tell him that Red is trying to lock again, Blue fires again - this time the range is closer to 60km and not 70km. Blue could force Red to "keep his head down" until his is less than 50km away with would be the NEZ, then then fire the killer shot. 

Yes you have wasted missiles but I understand the Soviets fired two shots at a time anyway.


----------



## Super Falcon

well what difference it makes for PAF we have both in use but thing which comes in mind can those SD 10 be used with american made F 16


----------



## MZUBAIR

SD-10 & PL9 SAM versions were also under development in 2009


----------



## MZUBAIR




----------



## Tempest II

Super Falcon said:


> well what difference it makes for PAF we have both in use but thing which comes in mind can those SD 10 be used with american made F 16



Anything can be done if you have the time, money and expertise ... ... *if it is worth it and there is the desire.* 

Re-wiring a system to work as it was never intended to happens. I believe the Grifo radars in the PAF fire both Sidewinders and PL-Series missiles. The equivalent Chinese radar can work with Sidewinders too. Radar guided missiles will be more complex but it will not be impossible.


----------



## MZUBAIR

SD-10 SAM versions


----------



## MZUBAIR

The Lie Shou &#8220;Hunter&#8221; II Air Defense System or &#8220;LS-II ADS&#8221; was displayed publicly at the Zhuhai 2008 exhibition. It is a Chinese analogue to the US MIM-120/MPQ-64 Sentinel &#8220;SLAMRAAM&#8221; point defence system, but with the important distinction in a mixed missile armament, comprising two SD-10/PL-12 and two PL-9C. *The SD-10/PL-12 is an analogue of the AIM-120 AMRAAM, but with better range performance, and equipped with the Russian designed Agat 9B-1103M active radar seeker. *The PL-9C is an analogue of the AIM-9H/L Sidewinder. The LS II is therefore a defacto hybrid of the Chapparel and SLAMRAAM concepts, but with a self propelled engagement/acquisition radar rather than the towed MPQ-64 radar used with the SLAMRAAM.


Source:- Australian Air Power


----------



## Tempest II

MZUBAIR said:


> SD-10 & PL9 SAM versions were also under development in 2009



They are already being marketed - some I would think a version or two is past development: China National Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation - Air-to-Air Missile



> PL-9C Multi-purpose Misslie
> 
> ... ... ....
> An improved 3rd generation multi-purpose IR missile;
> Good head-on detection capability;
> Anti-jamming capability;
> Multi-element detection and digital signal prossesing (DSP);
> Used in dogfight, *land-based/ship-based air defense system*


----------



## rockstarIN

Is new ARMRAAM versions is using ramjet technology?

If yes, did they already field it with their fighters?

So far I think, Ramjet powered BVRs are under testing. ARMRAAM, Meteor and R-77new versions, yet to integrate to the fighters..


----------



## jagjitnatt

monitor said:


> is there any ways to keep the range intact by suppose by increasing fuel by extending the missile size/diameter or by any other means .



Range can be increased, but that requires structural changes, and much more propellant since adding more propellant will also add more weight, and that requires more thrust to counter.

This is the reason AAMs are not used as SAMs in most cases. Also that most AAMs and shorter SAMs coast in their final phase, and don't have their engines on. So this further reduces their chance to maneuver.


----------



## MZUBAIR

While some confusion remains about designations, most sources identify the SD-10 and PL-12 as the
same missile, China's equivalent to the AMRAAM. This weapon is in sizing and configuration very similar
to the AIM-120A, but employs a unique tail planform. Equipped with an active radar seeker, and datalink
aided inertial midcourse guidance, *this missile is a credible player against the AMRAAM and R-77 series.*
The indigenous AMR-1 active seeker is identified with the PL-12, and numerous reports exist claiming that
it is a derivative of the Russian Agat 9B-1348E seeker package used in the R-77 series. The production
status of the PL-12 is unclear, but the missile has been claimed as a future weapon for the indigenous J-
10 fighter and the Su-27SK and Su-30, replacing imported R-77s on the latter. There is little doubt that
the PL-12 closes most of the technology gap between Chinese built BVR missiles and in service Western
BVR missiles.

Source


----------



## jagjitnatt

notorious_eagle said:


> What i love about this missile is its ability to go both active or passive, its certinely going to make the JF17 even more lethal. Its only logical to assume at the pace China is progressing in every field, they are producing missiles as good as Russia and in future they will outclass every country except the United States.



Well, it was not a surprise to me when they said it has a dual mode seeker, because the seeker used in SD-10 is a seeker form R-77 missile, and R-77 missile has passive as well as active radar modes.
This allows the missile to be used as an anti-radiation missile.


----------



## rockstarIN

jagjitnatt said:


> Well, it was not a surprise to me when they said it has a dual mode seeker, because the seeker used in SD-10 is a seeker form R-77 missile, and R-77 missile has passive as well as active radar modes.
> This allows the missile to be used as an anti-radiation missile.



You mean to say Russians gave out their technology or they reverse engineered?


----------



## jagjitnatt

rockstar said:


> You mean to say Russians gave out their technology or they reverse engineered?



Russians sold R77s to China, and China reverse engineered.
Earlier it directly used the seeker of R-77 on its missiles, and now working on its own seekers.


----------



## Dazzler

jagjitnatt said:


> That is SUPER optimism according to me.
> If that is the case, then SD-10C will be 200 km, and SD-10D will be 250 km, and soon we will have missiles that will have 500 km range. lol.
> 
> Range doesn't always increase in newer versions. There is a limit after which increasing range requires a lot of technical research, and for every km of range increased, the cost of research starts to increase 5x.
> 
> So SD-10A = 70kms, and at max SD-10B = 90 kms




Judging by history, my optimism has been closer to reality so i am confident this time around it will be no different. By the way, sd-10a does have a range of 90-100 km as per my source in PAF and this variant was tested on JFT not too long ago. B variant is to have a more powerful motor with new seeker and range to be reached as per PLAAF and PAF is at least 140 km. 


Regards

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## SomeGuy

rockstar said:


> You mean to say Russians gave out their technology or they reverse engineered?



A combination of joint development, tech transfer and further R&D.



> CATIC is known to be developing X-band and Ku-band active radar seekers, which may be intended for the PL-12. However the latest reports confirm that *China has been co-operating closely with Russia's AGAT Research Institute*, based in Moscow, and that AGAT is the source of the PL-12's essential active seeker. This *joint development* effort (perhaps with the name 'Project 129') has reportedly seen the supply of AGAT's 9B-1348 active-radar seeker (developed for the Vympel R-77, AA-12 'Adder') to China for integration with the Chinese-developed missile. Alternatively, technology from AGAT's 9B-1103M seeker family may be offered to China. Russia is also the source for the missile's inertial navigation system and datalink.



PL-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## TaimiKhan

nabil_05 said:


> Judging by history, my optimism has been closer to reality so i am confident this time around it will be no different. By the way, sd-10a does have a range of 90-100 km as per my source in PAF and this variant was tested on JFT not too long ago. B variant is to have a more powerful motor with new seeker and range to be reached as per PLAAF and PAF is at least 140 km.
> 
> 
> Regards



Problem with people is that they don't employ sometimes the common sense, thus they stick to one thing and don't show flexibility. 

About the range of SD-10A, its common sense to get an idea from the official figures shown at international air or defence related shows, the Chinese give the range as *>70KM*, not as *=70KM*, meaning its greater or equal to 70KM, again meaning the real range has been not classified, rather the original user may get to know what the real range is. Even JDW had in some of its articles quoted the 80KM range, some stuck with the 70KM range, and then 1-2 years back we started to hear the 100Km mark. 

We have to remember, that the SD-10A / PL-12 has just recently entered the CAF, the pictures which we would use to see were of the missiles given to operational units for testing and evaluation and most probably in 2010 the first operational batch of PL-12s were inducted in the CAF. The missile program was started way back in this early decade or in last decade and since then we have been hearing the 70KM range figure. Its ironic that a missile in developed is quoted to have a range of 70KM back in 2001-02 is still having a range of 70KM in 2009-10 after 8 years of development when its being officially inducted, hard to believe that. And as said, the Chinse have themselves given the answer with the addition of this *>* figure in the official presentation, meaning the missile can go farther. 

I have no idea, why people become so rigid and can't see some of the simple facts infront of them. 

I have been hearing some pretty cool things about the PAF version of SD-10, hope the data link of SD-10 works smoothly with JF-17s western communication / data link, would be one good experience for PAF to do the integration.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BATMAN

jagjitnatt said:


> Russians sold R77s to China, and China reverse engineered.
> Earlier it directly used the seeker of R-77 on its missiles, and now working on its own seekers.



Does SD-10 look like R-77 to you?
What do you really imply with term 'reverse engineer'?
China is working on every product you name!

I think you get satidfied by down playing any development by China and Pakistan.
Sorry to say, seems India have copy righted word 'Indigenous'.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jagjitnatt

BATMAN said:


> Does SD-10 look like R-77 to you?
> What do you really imply with term 'reverse engineer'?
> China is working on every product you name!
> 
> I think you get satidfied by down playing any development by China and Pakistan.
> Sorry to say, seems India have copy righted word 'Indigenous'.



I was talking about the seeker. Go read up something on it. Even chinese sites claim it is from the R-77.


----------



## Tempest II

TaimiKhan said:


> ... ... the Chinese give the range as *>70KM*, not as *=70KM*, meaning its greater or equal to 70KM, again meaning the real range has been not classified, rather the original user may get to know what the real range is. Even JDW had in some of its articles quoted the 80KM range, some stuck with the 70KM range, and then 1-2 years back we started to hear the 100Km mark.
> 
> ... ... Its ironic that a missile in developed is quoted to have a range of 70KM back in 2001-02 is still having a range of 70KM in 2009-10 after 8 years of development when its being officially inducted, hard to believe that. And as said, the Chinse have themselves given the answer with the addition of this *>* figure in the official presentation, meaning the missile can go farther. ... ...



Exactly my logic too and I agree with you. I however take it further qoute the PLA news article saying J-10s were armed with missiles with a range greather than 100km. 

Here is a second source: 
PLA Air to Air Missiles and the AIM-120C is quoted as having a range of 110km in some of its versions.



> The missile is widely credited with superior range performance to the AIM-120A-C variants.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Tempest II

One more post: I took this from acig.org. This is from April 2004 and apparently it was an interview with the SD-10 designer. The original SD-10 was superior to the R-77 and the AIM-120 A/B and was very close to the AIM-120C. So the fact that the SD-10A is superior to AIM-120C should be no suprise!!

Also note that for ALL THE MISSILES the the targets are approaching at greather than Mach 1.2. So for a missile with a max speed of Mach 4, the target will be hit at about 70% of the given max range. I say 70% because the missile does not travel at Mach 4, the average speed for it flight is a lot less. 



> Some translations and points discovered by Hyperwarp in the AFM concerning an magazine published article of an interview with the designer of the SD-10.
> 
> "Efective combat altitude 0-25Km.
> Ability to engage target 10kms higher or lower than launch altitude.
> Range at 10Km altitude at M1.2 target at same altitude =70Km.
> No escape zone for F-16 type target = 35-45km
> Max overload=38G, Speed =4M
> Plans to be also used as SAM system."
> 
> "Designer was asked at end to rate BVR AAMs. He rated Meteor as best BVR AAM, then AIM-120C, then his SD-10, then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Skyflash at equal fourth, then Derby, and last of all, MICA."
> 
> "What the designer said is that they used the same way AIM-120 calculated its range. target and launch aircraft flying at each other at 1.2 mach and at 10000 metres. The range is 70 km under such circumstance.
> Also interesting is the designer basically said the russians "cheated" with R-77, as they calculated the max range with target and launcher flying at each other at 1.5 mach and at 12000 metres altitude."
> 
> A more detailed translation by Dongdong posted in the AFM forums:
> 
> "I just bought the BING GONG KE JI magazine with the SD-10 designer interview. The interview is pretty informative. Add my points for translation:
> 
> Ahout the max shot range:
> 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). AIM120s test condition is similar to SD-10. However Russians propaganda is a little more exaggerated. For example, R-77s test condition is: carrier and target are flying at 20Kms altitude; each has 1.5Ms velocity, head to head flying. Under such a condition, the max range is 100Km. The problem is higher altitude means less aerodynamic resistance, plus the faster velocity for both the carrier and the target. The range is naturally longer. So you shouldnt only consider parameters isolated with each other. *In fact, our SD-10s range is better than AIM-120A/B, a litter less than AIM-120C, almost same as R-77s.*
> 
> About ranking MRAAM:
> Designer : Its not easy to rank ..Various persons have various standards
> First of all, Euros Meteor should be No.1. This missiles performance is very advanced, its range reaches 160Km.It belongs to next generation missiles. Next, I think the AIM-120C is more advanced. For original AIM-120 missile, whatever components, materials and craft are world first class. Now it is upgraded to Type C, it makes new progress on range, precision and anti-jamming capability. Following, It should be our SD-10. Then AIM-120A/B, R-77, Active Skyflash at equal fourth. Then Israels Derby, Derby has a comparable overall performance with the above missiles, but its range is relatively short. Last of all, MICA, its tech is not bad, however its a tradeoff between BVR and dogfight, so is naturally inferior to dedicated MRAAM.
> 
> Reporter asked : Our SD-10 has a good ranking. Why do you say our SD-10 is more advanced than R-77?
> Designer: *We adopted some technologies more advanced than R-77s, so SD-10s overall performance is better than R-77s. For instance, our strap-down initial navigation system, signal processing system are more advanced than R-77s. Our missile was developed relatively later than R-77.Some new technologies were not mature when R-77 was developed, so R-77 didnt use the new technologies, but when SD-10 was developed, the new technologies became mature, so we adopted the new technologies in SD-10.*
> 
> SD-10s milestones:
> Designer: We started the pre-research work for advanced radar guidance air to air missile in mid of 1980.
> Phase1:mid of 1980 to beginning of 1990, key technologies study
> Phase2;Started from mid of 1990, sub-systems development
> Phase3:Started from end of 1990, missile overall performance verification test
> Phase4:After entering 21st century, demo verification test
> Now, the development of SD-10 has been completed."

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Manticore

some missile ranges..
http://www.defence.pk/forums/wmd-missiles/19447-air-air-missiles-command-air-3.html#post1356238


----------



## fatman17

*PL-12/SD-10 (courtesy of FK, ZC, SZX, hxqy) * 

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. It was initially expected to be in the same class as AIM-120A and its active seeker may have evolved from the earlier AMR-1 design (R-129? based on Russian 9B-1348 seeker & datalink for R-77). Its tailfins appear to have fin tips as well as the leading edges of the fin root cropped. These specially designed tailfins are believed to possess lower drag for greater speed and higher torque for better maneuverability. Two datalink antennas can be seen next to the nozzle for mid-course correction. Several dielectric strips are seen along the middle warhead section which may house the radio proximity fuse. PL-12 completed its development test in December 2004 and was certified in 2005. Currently it is in the service with J-8F, J-10 and J-11B. In addition it is expected to equip JF-17/FC-1 currently entering service with PAF. Some specifications of SD-10: length 3,850mm, diameter 203mm, wing span 674mm, weight 180kg, max g-load 38g, max speed 4M, max range 70km. Recently produced PL-12 is expected to feature an improved seeker with new digital processor and SINS. The improved PL-12 (PL-12A?) is thought to be comparable to American AIM-120C4. The latest news (November 2010) suggested that PL-12 may feature an active/passive dual mode seeker in order to achieve greater ECCM capability and kill probability. Several improved versions have been under development at 607 Institute, including PL-12B with improved guidance system, PL-12C with foldable tailfins for internal carriage by the 4th generation fighters (e.g. J-20) and PL-12D with a belly air inlet and a ramjet motor for long range attack similar to PL-21.

- Last Updated 1/2/11


----------



## jagjitnatt

fatman17 said:


> *PL-12/SD-10 (courtesy of FK, ZC, SZX, hxqy) *
> 
> 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. It was initially expected to be in the same class as AIM-120A and its active seeker may have evolved from the earlier AMR-1 design (*R-129? based on Russian 9B-1348 seeker & datalink for R-77*). Its tailfins appear to have fin tips as well as the leading edges of the fin root cropped. These specially designed tailfins are believed to possess lower drag for greater speed and higher torque for better maneuverability. Two datalink antennas can be seen next to the nozzle for mid-course correction. Several dielectric strips are seen along the middle warhead section which may house the radio proximity fuse. PL-12 completed its development test in December 2004 and was certified in 2005. Currently it is in the service with J-8F, J-10 and J-11B. In addition it is expected to equip JF-17/FC-1 currently entering service with PAF. Some specifications of SD-10: length 3,850mm, diameter 203mm, wing span 674mm, weight 180kg, max g-load 38g, max speed 4M, *max range 70km*. Recently produced PL-12 is expected to feature an improved seeker with new digital processor and SINS. The improved PL-12 (PL-12A?) is thought to be comparable to American AIM-120C4. The latest news (November 2010) suggested that PL-12 may feature an active/passive dual mode seeker in order to achieve greater ECCM capability and kill probability. Several improved versions have been under development at 607 Institute, including PL-12B with improved guidance system, PL-12C with foldable tailfins for internal carriage by the 4th generation fighters (e.g. J-20) and PL-12D with a belly air inlet and a ramjet motor for long range attack similar to PL-21.
> 
> - Last Updated 1/2/11



Thank you for the update. I hope other members learn something from this.

LOL. It is hilarious when people say cause developers said its >70, and it could be anything over 70 km.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaimiKhan

jagjitnatt said:


> Thank you for the update. I hope other members learn something from this.
> 
> LOL. It is hilarious when people say cause developers said its >70, and it could be anything over 70 km.



Yeah, for people like you, it seems hilarious since you are the only one with LOL, but those who have common sense can understand and show some understanding too with so much public data, which clearly gives a hint that the range is not 70KM, but i know its hard for you to understand, since i have a very good past record with you about your knowledge. Heck, even the post #163 by Tempest could not make you understand that at what conditions or factors the range is calculated, especially for SD-10A, kindly read it and update yourself that at what conditions range is 70KM for SD-10A and how by manipulating the conditions the range can be increased, which clearly tells us that the SD-10A can fly further if there is a change in the conditions for the launching of SD-10, that is why the manufacturers have put the *>* sign in their official brochettes, as the missile can go above 70KM range if conditions permit it. 

Read that post and understand it, don't come back the way you came last time in your replies.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## jha

jagjitnatt said:


> Thank you for the update. I hope other members learn something from this.
> 
> LOL. It is hilarious when people say cause developers said its >70, and it could be anything over 70 km.



The range of AAM is highly misunderstood term..No missile which claims to have a range of 70 Km. can shoot a fighter at 70 km..
The max.range is calculated in the most favorable conditions ..
You had explained this but it seems Fanboyism is more dominant here..


----------



## TaimiKhan

jha said:


> The range of AAM is highly misunderstood term..No missile which claims to have a range of 70 Km. can shoot a fighter at 70 km..
> The max.range is calculated in the most favorable conditions ..
> You had explained this but it seems* Fanboyism * is more dominant here..



Yeah, we all can see who is more fan boy of what and whom.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SomeGuy

jha said:


> The range of AAM is highly misunderstood term..No missile which claims to have a range of 70 Km. can shoot a fighter at 70 km..
> The max.range is calculated in the *most favorable conditions* ..
> You had explained this but it seems Fanboyism is more dominant here..



Most favourable conditions? - Not entirely true I'm afraid.

Look back to post #163.

Different manufacturers use different conditions to test their products.

According to the article:

For SD-10A it wasAlt: 10,000m, Speed: Mach 1.2​For R-77 it wasAlt: 20,000m, Speed: Mach 1.5​
If SD-10 was to be tested under the most favourable conditions, it would've have been done at a higher altitude and higher speed, like the R-77, this would have yieled a longer range. But the manufacturers didn't do this because they wanted to use the same testing conditions as the AIM-120.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chogy

Ranges vary wildly, and BOTH the launch platform and target speed, altitude, and aspect angles come into major play.

An AIM-9M has a published range of, say, 8nm. What they don't say is that a tail-chase near sea-level, with a target doing M1.2, the range shrinks to <3nm. At 50,000 feet, launch platform at M2.0, target coming on at M2.0, now you're looking (kinematically) at 20NM+.

Take it all with a grain of salt. Actual max ranges are situationally dependent, and actual kinetic profile is classified.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Super Falcon

so Taimi khan what you think both missiles at par or chinese is beter or american but i think PAF people are smart not stupids that factor let me think that SD 10 is as good as AMRAAM 120


----------



## TaimiKhan

Super Falcon said:


> so Taimi khan what you think both missiles at par or chinese is beter or american but i think PAF people are smart not stupids that factor let me think that SD 10 is as good as AMRAAM 120



For now due to the superiority of weapons we have seen from the Americans, my bet is on the AMRAAM. Chinese are new to the game and learning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

*MAJOR differences!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

PL-12 IS NOT SD-10.

SD-10A is the export version of PL-12 the main difference is the data link and radar seeker. This way even if Americans, Indians, or others get SD-10, it will not get vital informatiions about PL-12's data link and radar informations!

PL-12A is currently state of art, has a range over 110KM!


----------



## AerospaceEngineer

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SD-10A already has rang ove 100KM

PL-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Stealth_fighter

The SD-10 is the first active radar-guided beyond visual range (BVR) air-to-air missile (AAM) to be developed and fielded in China. It is the product of a high-priority programme, launched in the 1990s, to produce a modern air-to-air weapon for the new generation of Chinese combat aircraft taking shape at that time. The SD-10 is now in front-line service with the People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and Navy (PLAN), equipping aircraft like the (late model) Shenyang J-8, Chengdu J-10 and Shenyang J-11B. The missile has been exported to Pakistan, to arm the JF-17 Thunder there. An improved version, the SD-10A, followed the baseline SD-10 into production, and this is now assumed to be the standard variant. Further development of the SD-10 is assumed to be underway although there is little official information available on this aspect.In November 2010 a significant claim was made for the SD-10's performance. Officials from LOEC said that the SD-10 was designed from its inception to function with a dual-mode seeker operating in distinct active and passive radar homing modes. If this assertion is accurate then the SD-10 is a more capable weapon than hitherto believed. *In fact, it would be the first AAM to enter service with this acknowledged capability.*The SD-10 is a product of the Luoyang Electro-Optical Technology Development Center (LOEC) which provides a core element of the air weapons expertise within its parent, the Aviation Industries Corporation of China (AVIC) industrial bloc. This missile product line includes the PL-5E, PL-9C

this article was published jan 20 2011 in j a n e s.i tried to insert the link but it did not work.and in another article i read that range is greater then 100km


----------



## rcrmj

AerospaceEngineer said:


> WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> SD-10A already has rang ove 100KM
> 
> PL-12 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


 
I think one thing needs to clarify about AAM missiles' maximum range is that there are 3 kinds of maximum ranges

1. the maximum dynamic flight range which includes the glide range
2. the maximum flight range by motor
3. the classic max engage range (with all favorable conditions, height, speed, etc``)

the first one tends to have the longest range but the stats is usless in combat situation and it is just a fair judgment on missile's areodynamics.

the second one which is mostly quoted by manufactures as the attribute. at the moment none of any AAM missile has over 90km ranges. I believe the SD-10 70km range falls into this category

and the 3nd range that matters the most in real combat situation. called none escaptable zoon!

for example; in the best senario of F-22 carrying AIM-120 at optimum high altitude and speed of 1.5M, when the opponent heading directly with speed of 1.2M the maximum engage range of AIM-120 is 49KM! which means when the target steps in 49KM then its death zoon!

but of couse in that senario F-22 can fire missile beyond 49 KM but the killing ratio will drop dramaticly!

so therefore, I do not believe PL-12 has a classic maximum engagment range more than 50 KM at the moment taking the fact that our J-20 is still in development.


----------



## nightcrawler

TaimiKhan said:


> For now due to the* superiority of weapons we have seen from the Americans*, my bet is on the AMRAAM. Chinese are new to the game and learning.


 
Being said in the context of air to air missiles I am afraid that I will disagree with you on this...The Russians clearly has the advantage in the field of A2A Missile. The deadliest; most maneuverable & most high ranged missile come from Vympel design bureau & not the Raython/Boeing...
I am quiet keen over the marginal developments in this particular field by the Russian...do see their latest developments as of 2011
DefenceDog: PAK-FA [T-50] Latest Armaments


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakist...s-aim-120-latest-versions-11.html#post1386428
This is from above link which quotes sd10 designer interview. 

"Efective combat altitude
0-25Km.
Ability to engage target
10kms higher or lower than
launch altitude.
Range at 10Km altitude at
M1.2 target at same
altitude =70Km.
No escape zone for F-16
type target = 35-45km
Max overload=38G, Speed
=4M

1.)"What the designer said is
that they used the same
way AIM-120 calculated its
range. target and launch
aircraft flying at each other
at 1.2 mach and at *10000
metres. The range is 70 km
under such circumstance.*
Also interesting is the
designer basically said the
russians "cheated" with
R-77, as they calculated
the max range with target
and launcher flying at each
other at 1.5 mach and* at
12000 metres altitude."*


2. Ahout the max shot range:
The Deputy Chief Designer
of SD-10 said: The
parameter of &#8220;max range&#8221; is
determined by the relative
position of missile&#8217;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&#8217;s carrier and the
target aircraft are flying at
*10Km&#8217;s altitude, *both the
missile carrier&#8217;s velocity
and target&#8217;s velocity are
1.2Mach, their flying
direction is reverse(head to
head). AIM120&#8217;s test
condition is similar to
SD-10. However Russian&#8217;s
propaganda is a little more
exaggerated. For example,
R-77&#8217;s test condition is:
carrier and target are flying
at *20Km&#8217;s altitude;* each
has 1.5M&#8217;s velocity, head
to head flying. Under such
a condition, the max range
is 100Km. 
I SEE CONTRADICTIONS IN POINT ONE AND POINT TWO REGARDING THE ALTITUDE IN WHICH HE SAYS RUSSIANS TESTED R77. 
@sancho @sandy_3126, @DARKY @stormForce @Abingdonboy


----------



## sancho

Agnostic_Indian said:


> I SEE CONTRADICTIONS IN POINT ONE AND POINT TWO REGARDING THE ALTITUDE IN WHICH HE SAYS RUSSIANS TESTED R77.
> @sancho @sandy_3126, @DARKY @stormForce @Abingdonboy



Obviously, but I didn't find other specs for the test altitude, so can't tell help you here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

sancho said:


> Obviously, but I didn't find other specs for the test altitude, so can't tell help you here.



ok fine . i think i have find out one more bad news about RVV AE, the only active medium range missile operational with iaf. the max range 80km is for bomber type target, for fighter class target it's 50 km only.


http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=173069&d=1242612020
so i think we should really be upgrading our BVR missile sooner with something better.


----------



## sancho

Agnostic_Indian said:


> ok fine . i think i have find out one more bad news about RVV AE, the only active medium range missile operational with iaf. the max range 80km is for bomber type target, for fighter class target it's 50 km only.
> 
> 
> http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=173069&d=1242612020
> so i think we should really be upgrading our BVR missile sooner with something better.



How should the missile differ between target size and have different performance for them? If it has 80Km against the one, it will also have it against the other .


----------



## Agnostic_Indian

sancho said:


> How should the missile differ between target size and have different performance for them? If it has 80Km against the one, it will also have it against the other .



did you check the link, the info is from Russian export agency. 
about the difference may be because bomber has less maneuveriability and speed.


----------



## sancho

Agnostic_Indian said:


> did you check the link, the info is from Russian export agency.
> about the difference may be because bomber has less maneuveriability and speed.



Of course it is less maneuverable, but that still has nothing to do with the range of the missile, infact the target has no relation at all, only the launch platform, since launch altitude and speed can make changes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Its equal to the Aim-120C in performance as per my sources.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Donatello

Oscar said:


> Its equal to the Aim-120C in performance as per my sources.



Most people here will have trouble believing that.

But it's good to know that we have a sanction proof alternative for BVR missiles.


Oscar,

Are Mirage III/V and F-7 to be tested with SD10 or is it too difficult to put in with their BVR Radars?


----------



## SQ8

Donatello said:


> *Most people here will have trouble believing that.*
> 
> But it's good to know that we have a sanction proof alternative for BVR missiles.
> 
> 
> Oscar,
> 
> Are Mirage III/V and F-7 to be tested with SD10 or is it too difficult to put in with their BVR Radars?



IN a way that is a good thing. 

And the mirage series have their own system while the F-7's are generally point interceptors.
The PG's are capable of utilizing a BVR weapon but as such they dont simply because there are less to go around and the ROSE-I series gets priority. Moreover, both P and PG pilots are trained in tactics to force a merge as soon as possible.


----------



## Donatello

Oscar said:


> IN a way that is a good thing.
> 
> And the mirage series have their own system while the F-7's are generally point interceptors.
> The PG's are capable of utilizing a BVR weapon but as such they dont simply because there are less to go around and the ROSE-I series gets priority. *Moreover, both P and PG pilots are trained in tactics to force a merge as soon as possible.*




What system does Mirage have for BVR?

And can you please explain the bolded part.

Thanks.


----------



## SQ8

Donatello said:


> What system does Mirage have for BVR?
> 
> And can you please explain the bolded part.
> 
> Thanks.



That system is unnamed so to keep the participating nation free from whiny diplomacy.
It worked with the mirage ROSE's Grifo-M.

Forcing a merge means to get into the WVR range as quickly and as safely as possible.
Such a scenario is difficult if you and your adversary are at longer ranges but in the literally minutes of flight time between bases and combat areas within the Indo-Pak region.. it can actually work well.

The IAF had similar concepts for it's Mig-21 fleet.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajput_Pakistani

sancho said:


> How should the missile differ between target size and have different performance for them? If it has 80Km against the one, it will also have it against the other .



It has to do with "No Escape Zone". Faster a target is, the smaller is the "No Escape Zone"


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

600 SD10 , Missiles would keep all the JF17 thunder pilots quite happy if the performance of these missiles is on par with AMRAAM 120C

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sohail.ishaque

Any updated info about SD10 vs Aim120 after the 27th Feb results ? lot being talked about both of them but no concrete info yet.


----------



## Dazzler

sohail.ishaque said:


> Any updated info about SD10 vs Aim120 after the 27th Feb results ? lot being talked about both of them but no concrete info yet.










@Bilal Khan 777 @messiach @Oscar 

Got this screengrab from the HUD footage perhaps?


----------



## SQ8

Dazzler said:


> View attachment 547986
> 
> 
> @Bilal Khan 777 @messiach @Oscar
> 
> Got this screengrab from the HUD footage perhaps?


SD-10 = AIM-120C7


----------



## Reichsmarschall

rsingh said:


> SD-10 No Combat experience.


no it has 2 kills IAF mig 21 and Su30

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## GumNaam

Reichsmarschall said:


> no it has 2 kills IAF mig 21 and Su30


Corrections, su30 and mirage2k. mig21 was killed by the PL9.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

GumNaam said:


> Corrections, su30 and mirage2k. mig21 was killed by the PL9.


honestly i have followed this news closely and i am still confused

did we found any material evidence of anything beyond mi21 and mi17


----------



## GumNaam

ziaulislam said:


> honestly i have followed this news closely and i am still confused
> 
> did we found any material evidence of anything beyond mi21 and mi17


No we haven't. the mi17 was only exposed cuz al jazeerah showed it on camera. the su30 and the mirage2k fell deep on the iok side. But a vast number of us including myself have family members in the military and the chatter that is coming from all of them and the chatter from the social media is all indicating that an su30 and a mirage2k were also knocked out. this is probably as close as we'll ever get since the indians are too ashamed to either confirm or deny.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Aryeih Leib

AMRAAM

has a Pk of 63.15% (19 missiles for 12 kills, including the Syrian Su-22 downed by a US Navy F/A-18E). The targets included six MiG-29s, a MiG-25, a MiG-23, two Su-22s, a Galeb and a US Army Blackhawk that was targeted by mistake.


----------



## messiach

Vintage works, these are intergated algorithms R-opt - R-aero R-pi R-tr R-min. These algorithms used to provide feedback for real time data interception for mid and termina course optimization. Now we have builtin AESA guidance.




Dazzler said:


> View attachment 547986
> 
> 
> @Bilal Khan 777 @messiach @Oscar
> 
> Got this screengrab from the HUD footage perhaps?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dazzler

messiach said:


> Vintage works, these are intergated algorithms R-opt - R-aero R-pi R-tr R-min. These algorithms used to provide feedback for real time data interception for mid and termina course optimization. Now we have builtin AESA guidance.



Can you elabrate a little more on this please? 

Thanks


----------



## pkd

Dazzler said:


> Can you elabrate a little more on this please?
> 
> Thanks


AESA radar, which is used in the terminal phase of flight to lock onto the target ??


----------



## messiach

This is vintage, not relevant.


Dazzler said:


> Can you elabrate a little more on this please?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## ZAC1

Donatello said:


> How much experience does the IAF have with the R-77s on their SU30s or R-77s in general.
> 
> 
> Don't spam with one liners....


Mig 21 n su 30 kills by sd 10

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TheTallGuy

Bilal Haque said:


> dont believe that the su30 was 'killed' more like damaged. no wreckage to prove, just as there is no wreckage to prove that we lost an f16.



Su-30MKI was hit in belly

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The Accountant

Bilal Haque said:


> dont believe that the su30 was 'killed' more like damaged. no wreckage to prove, just as there is no wreckage to prove that we lost an f16.
> the AMRAAM C5 has a proximity fuse and very likely exploded in proximity of the Su. the 120 in the AIM120 is for 120 seconds of flight time, most the flight being ballistic as the rocket motor burns out in the initial few seconds but the feedback on the flight of the missile is recieved for about 120 secs


Bro its an air to air missile ... it goes ballistic meand its worthless


----------



## Shabi1

Heard PAF switched to latest production variant of SD-10s, anyone have updates on SD-10B.


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> Bro its an air to air missile ... it goes ballistic meand its worthless


All BVR does that to increase their range, in boost-*glide* phase, this glide phase means BVR goes ballistic @The Accountant


----------



## khanasifm

Shabi1 said:


> Heard PAF switched to latest production variant of SD-10s, anyone have updates on SD-10B.



[emoji101] from where ? 

Lots of fake news being posted on social media 

Even if the case paf will disclose to Allan Warren


----------



## nomi007

he revelation of PL-10 imagery with the clear implication of South African technical participation also provides possible insights into another AAM found on a Chinese university website in mid-December 2007. This AAM has not yet been identified by any official or unofficial PLA source, but this single picture shows some similarity to the Denel radar-guided R-Darter, which is virtually the same missile as the Israeli Aircraft Industries Derby. The product of Israeli and South African cooperation during the 1980s and 1990s, the R-Darter has a light weight of 120kg and reported range of 63km.[8] It appears that the R-Darter/Derby program intended to produce a very maneuverable but light-weight radar-guided AAM that could be back-fitted to advanced 3rd and 4th generation fighters. R-Darter entered service with the South African Air Force but Derby has not yet entered service with the Israeli Air Force, though it is reportedly being used by the Singapore Air Force.













*New Radar Guided AAM:* Two new-type AAMs straddle a single PL-12 on a three-missile pylon on a JH-7A fighter bomber (top). This vague image was obtained from a Chinese university web site, and appears to show some similarity to the somewhat larger South African/Israeli R-Darter (bottom) radar-guided AAM. Source: Internet
The key similarity between the new PLA AAM and the R-Darter appears to be their shape and the possible inclusion of a small roll stabilization fins behind the front fins. However, it also appears that this new missile is appreciably smaller than the R-Darter, perhaps weighing only about 100 to 110kgs.[9] This would mean a shorter range, perhaps 20 to 30km. It is not known whether this new AAM has a semi-active, active, or even a passive seeker. One possibility may be a version of the new small 150mm seeker being marketed by Russia’s AGAT.[10] It is clear that the PLA intends to exploit this missile’s light weight, as its first public illustration shows two of the new missiles paired with a PL-12 on a single three-missile launch pylon. This pylon configuration allows newer fighters such as the FC-1, J-10, J-11B and JH-7A to increase their beyond-visual-range AAM carriage capability. This missile could also be intended to quickly upgrade the latest models of 3rd generation fighters like the Shenyang J-8IIF/H and the Chengdu J-7E/G with a lightweight radar guided AAM to complement the PL-10 infrared/imaging AAM. 

If these two new PLA AAMs were aided substantially by South Africa, then it would stand to reason that South Africa may have also provided key enabling technologies such as Helmet Mounted Display systems and data links. Denel’s Archer HMD was developed to support the A-Darter and R-Darter and would likely have been sold to China along with the AAM technology. China’s Luoyang group has also long commented, albeit cryptically, on its interest in developing HMD technology, with images of experimental HMDs appearing from time to time. A new Luoyang HMD may benefit from indigenous and foreign technology. A helmet mounted sight displayed by the Cigong Group at the 2004 Zhuhai show uses prominent light-emitting diodes to allow cockpit computers to track the position of the pilot’s head, in order to target weapons, the same system used by the Denel Archer HMD. 












*Advanced Helmet Systems:* The South African “Archer” helmet mounted display (top) uses light emitting diodes to track pilot head position in order to target weapons. The Cigong Group helmet sight seen a the 2004 Zhuhai show used a similar head tracking system. Any potential South African help with new PLA AAMs likely included the sale of advanced helmet display technology. Source: Denel and RD Fisher


----------



## The Accountant

pakistanipower said:


> All BVR does that to increase their range, in boost-*glide* phase, this glide phase means BVR goes ballistic @The Accountant


No brother, Only Meteor is capable of doing that or may be some russian missiles using Ramjet engines as they have variable thorrttle ... The AIM 120 C5s have a solid fuel rocket motor which do not have variable thrust and hence cannot increase or decrease thrust like Meteor ... so its useless to go upside and then attack on ballistic trajectory for a missile which has consistent thrust ...

Meteor on the contrary uses this approach as it has a variable thrust .. Initially it combines to a hight by using more thrust and then keep on gliding to get close to the target and than increase the thrust with the dive ... Thats how it can increase its range and save fuel while gliding... AIM 120 cannot save fuel while gliding therefore why would it waste fuel and time in going upwards? May be the attack trajectory would have been designed upside down but it cant be ballistic as ballistic means free falling which AIM 120 cant do as its motor once start cant be slowed whereas meteor's motor can be slowed as its ramjet engine ...



Bilal Haque said:


> it does, please check again!


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> No brother, Only Meteor is capable of doing that or may be some russian missiles using Ramjet engines as they have variable thorrttle ... The AIM 120 C5s have a solid fuel rocket motor which do not have variable thrust and hence cannot increase or decrease thrust like Meteor ... so its useless to go upside and then attack on ballistic trajectory for a missile which has consistent thrust ...
> 
> Meteor on the contrary uses this approach as it has a variable thrust .. Initially it combines to a hight by using more thrust and then keep on gliding to get close to the target and than increase the thrust with the dive ... Thats how it can increase its range and save fuel while gliding... AIM 120 cannot save fuel while gliding therefore why would it waste fuel and time in going upwards? May be the attack trajectory would have been designed upside down but it cant be ballistic as ballistic means free falling which AIM 120 cant do as its motor once start cant be slowed whereas meteor's motor can be slowed as its ramjet engine ...


No you're all wrong, opposite are right, Ramjet has fixed thrust not has variable thrust and Ramjet stated at Mach-1 not in zero speed, Variable ducked Ramjet doesn't means Ram jet reduce it thrust in cruise and technically there is no glide phase on Meteor flight, because its Ram jet can produce thrust throughout flight, SIMPLE MEANING OF GLIDING IN AVIATION TERMS IS THAT *AIRCRAFT OR MISSILES CAN GO TO DISTANT DISTANCE WITHOUT PROPULSIVE/ENGINE POWER (LIKE SPACE SHULTTLE upon reentering in earth atmosphere)
*
AMRAAM and other rocket powered BVR have dual thrust rocket motors, First after 
launch first rocket motor works only for 5 seconds (boost phase) then second motor kicks in for 22 seconds to take BVR into its extreme altitude (after that second motor stop working and BVR enter into *glide mode*) to extend it range (50,000 to 70,000 feet) because thinner atmosphere (low drag) and also increase its seeker range
And Meteor has similar procedure first rocket motor fire to take Meteor at Mach-1 than Ramjet takes over for rest of the flight So technically Meteor hasn't a glide Phase because of RAMJET, 

I am sorry to say bro you no basic information aviation terms and technical aspects of BVRAAM
@The Accountant


----------



## The Accountant

pakistanipower said:


> No you're all wrong, opposite are right, Ramjet has fixed thrust not has variable thrust and Ramjet stated at Mach-1 not in zero speed, Variable ducked Ramjet doesn't means Ram jet reduce it thrust in cruise and technically there is no glide phase on Meteor flight, because its Ram jet can produce thrust throughout flight, SIMPLE MEANING OF GLIDING IN AVIATION TERMS IS THAT *AIRCRAFT OR MISSILES CAN GO TO DISTANT DISTANCE WITHOUT PROPULSIVE/ENGINE POWER (LIKE SPACE SHULTTLE upon reentering in earth atmosphere)
> *
> AMRAAM and other rocket powered BVR have dual thrust rocket motors, First after
> launch first rocket motor works only for 5 seconds (boost phase) then second motor kicks in for 22 seconds to take BVR into its extreme altitude (after that second motor stop working and BVR enter into *glide mode*) to extend it range (50,000 to 70,000 feet) because thinner atmosphere (low drag) and also increase its seeker range
> And Meteor has similar procedure first rocket motor fire to take Meteor at Mach-1 than Ramjet takes over for rest of the flight So technically Meteor hasn't a glide Phase because of RAMJET,
> 
> I am sorry to say bro you no basic information aviation terms and technical aspects of BVRAAM
> @The Accountant





pakistanipower said:


> No you're all wrong, opposite are right, Ramjet has fixed thrust not has variable thrust and Ramjet stated at Mach-1 not in zero speed, Variable ducked Ramjet doesn't means Ram jet reduce it thrust in cruise and technically there is no glide phase on Meteor flight, because its Ram jet can produce thrust throughout flight, SIMPLE MEANING OF GLIDING IN AVIATION TERMS IS THAT *AIRCRAFT OR MISSILES CAN GO TO DISTANT DISTANCE WITHOUT PROPULSIVE/ENGINE POWER (LIKE SPACE SHULTTLE upon reentering in earth atmosphere)
> *
> AMRAAM and other rocket powered BVR have dual thrust rocket motors, First after
> launch first rocket motor works only for 5 seconds (boost phase) then second motor kicks in for 22 seconds to take BVR into its extreme altitude (after that second motor stop working and BVR enter into *glide mode*) to extend it range (50,000 to 70,000 feet) because thinner atmosphere (low drag) and also increase its seeker range
> And Meteor has similar procedure first rocket motor fire to take Meteor at Mach-1 than Ramjet takes over for rest of the flight So technically Meteor hasn't a glide Phase because of RAMJET,
> 
> I am sorry to say bro you no basic information aviation terms and technical aspects of BVRAAM
> @The Accountant


By increasing the fonts, changing the color your argument will not get value ...

I might or might not know about missile technology but you for sure don't understand the basics of physics ... You are interchangeably using the concepts of glide and ballistic which is nothing but stupid .... A ballistic trajectory is curved in nature and generally is a close to free fall in its terminal phase ... Gliding is, on the contrary, is to travel using wings and air ... There are reasons that glide bombs are different than ballistic missiles ...

I never argue that BVR missiles do not glide ... You should read the discussion from start rather than jumping into the conclusion in the middle without reading the start ... THe discussion with the guy quoting that AIM 120 speed is Mach 6 to which I disagree that a solid fuel motor cannot produce enough thrust to go for Mach 6 then he came with an argument that AIM 120 goes to Mach 6 as it goes ballistics whereas you are saying that it glides ...
Now you should decide first whether AIM 120 gets glide or follow ballistic trajectory between the switching of the pulses , furthermore, kindly also tell me even if it has ballistic trajectory (which i don't agree) how the hell it can gain 50% acceleration in just 25 to 30 seconds?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MastanKhan

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> "SD 10 will indeed grow up to become an aim 120 in maybe the next 10 years---but today---it has to endure many a growing pains that only a missile can bear".
> 
> I believe that Chogy made it very clear in his post what it is all about---over here we put a post on the board---and all the kids dig up the specs from different web-sites----and strut around their posts as they have found their own new god.
> 
> Truthfully---there is hardly any comparison between an SD 10 and an AIM 120---.
> 
> SD 10 is a first true bvr by the chinese---aim 120 has a pedigree a sheet long---. It is not saying bad about the missile---but seems like it is becoming a habbit of my pak colleagues of MAKING A MONSTER OUT OF A MONKEY.
> 
> SD 10 will indeed grow up to become an aim 120 in maybe the next 10 years---but today---it has to endure many a growing pains that only a missile can bear.



Hi,

10 years indeed---the chinese missile has proven itself---.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> By increasing the fonts, changing the color your argument will not get value ...
> 
> I might or might not know about missile technology but you for sure don't understand the basics of physics ... You are interchangeably using the concepts of glide and ballistic which is nothing but stupid .... A ballistic trajectory is curved in nature and generally is a close to free fall in its terminal phase ... Gliding is, on the contrary, is to travel using wings and air ... There are reasons that glide bombs are different than ballistic missiles ...
> 
> I never argue that BVR missiles do not glide ... You should read the discussion from start rather than jumping into the conclusion in the middle without reading the start ... THe discussion with the guy quoting that AIM 120 speed is Mach 6 to which I disagree that a solid fuel motor cannot produce enough thrust to go for Mach 6 then he came with an argument that AIM 120 goes to Mach 6 as it goes ballistics whereas you are saying that it glides ...
> Now you should decide first whether AIM 120 gets glide or follow ballistic trajectory between the switching of the pulses , furthermore, kindly also tell me even if it has ballistic trajectory (which i don't agree) how the hell it can gain 50% acceleration in just 25 to 30 seconds?


I was answering to your that statement that you say Meteor can glide which is wrong, Meteor can't glide because its powered by Ramjet only AMRAAM class missile can glide because its second duel pulse rocket motor stop working from initial boost, and it has a semi ballistic flight trajectories at certain cases, but its speed is not hyper-sonic but high supersonic (Mach-4+) only few BVRAAM reported to have hyper-sonic speed like US (retired) AIM-154 Phonix, Russian extreme range BVR like R-37 Arrow and Chinese VLRAAM @The Accountant


----------



## The Accountant

pakistanipower said:


> I was answering to your that statement that you say Meteor can glide which is wrong, Meteor can't glide because its powered by Ramjet only AMRAAM class missile can glide because its second duel pulse rocket motor stop working from initial boost, and it has a semi ballistic flight trajectories at certain cases, but its speed is not hyper-sonic but high supersonic (Mach-4+) only few BVRAAM reported to have hyper-sonic speed like US (retired) AIM-154 Phonix, Russian extreme range BVR like R-37 Arrow and Chinese VLRAAM @The Accountant


First of all there is nothing known as semi ballistic trajectory ... a trajectory can be ballistic or not ballostic there is no concept of semi ballistic trajectory ... dont create new concept just to prove your point ?

Again u r using your own definition of glide ... glide does not necessary means that a missile has to switch off the engine ... for example sometime an aircraft keep on gliding to lower the altitude without switching off the engine ... meteor use different type of flight profile depending on target and its distance ... theoratically it can glide but actual configuration is confidential ...

Last but not the least u were wrongly answering a statement without a context therefore it was all wrong ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> First of all there is nothing known as semi ballistic trajectory ... a trajectory can be ballistic or not ballostic there is no concept of semi ballistic trajectory ... dont create new concept just to prove your point ?
> 
> Again u r using your own definition of glide ... glide does not necessary means that a missile has to switch off the engine ... for example sometime an aircraft keep on gliding to lower the altitude without switching off the engine ... meteor use different type of flight profile depending on target and its distance ... theoratically it can glide but actual configuration is confidential ...
> 
> Last but not the least u were wrongly answering a statement without a context therefore it was all wrong ...


Bro bro, i have sorry to say you know nothing about missile trajectories knowledge, GLIDE MEANS WITHOUT ENGINE POWER (thrust) like BM warheads (reentry vehicles)
*Although the human application of gliding flight usually refers to aircraft designed for this purpose, most powered aircraft are capable of gliding without engine power.*

to evade ABM there are a tech called BOOST GLIDE VEHICLES (WARHEADS OF ICBMs),
real term is for Semi Ballistic Trajectories is *(quasi Ballistic Trajectories)*
*Depressed trajectory[edit]*
Throw-weight is normally calculated using an optimal ballistic trajectory from one point on the surface of the Earth to another. An optimal trajectory maximizes the total payload (throw-weight) using the available impulse of the missile. By reducing the payload weight, different trajectories can be selected which either extends the nominal range, or decreases the total time in flight. A depressed trajectory is a non-optimal, lower and flatter trajectory which takes less time between launch and impact, but with a lower throw-weight. The primary reasons to choose a depressed trajectory are either to evade anti-ballistic missile systems by reducing the time available to shoot down the attacking vehicle (especially during the vulnerable burn-phase against space-based ABM systems), or in a nuclear first-strike scenario.[9] An alternate, non-military, purpose for a depressed trajectory is in conjunction with the space plane concept with use of air-breathing engines, which requires the ballistic missile to remain sufficiently low inside the atmosphere for air-breathing engines to function.

you are confused with cruise mode and glide @The Accountant


----------



## The Accountant

pakistanipower said:


> Bro bro, i have sorry to say you know nothing about missile trajectories knowledge, GLIDE MEANS WITHOUT ENGINE POWER (thrust) like BM warheads (reentry vehicles)
> *Although the human application of gliding flight usually refers to aircraft designed for this purpose, most powered aircraft are capable of gliding without engine power.*
> 
> to evade ABM there are a tech called BOOST GLIDE VEHICLES (WARHEADS OF ICBMs),
> real term is for Semi Ballistic Trajectories is *(quasi Ballistic Trajectories)*
> *Depressed trajectory[edit]*
> Throw-weight is normally calculated using an optimal ballistic trajectory from one point on the surface of the Earth to another. An optimal trajectory maximizes the total payload (throw-weight) using the available impulse of the missile. By reducing the payload weight, different trajectories can be selected which either extends the nominal range, or decreases the total time in flight. A depressed trajectory is a non-optimal, lower and flatter trajectory which takes less time between launch and impact, but with a lower throw-weight. The primary reasons to choose a depressed trajectory are either to evade anti-ballistic missile systems by reducing the time available to shoot down the attacking vehicle (especially during the vulnerable burn-phase against space-based ABM systems), or in a nuclear first-strike scenario.[9] An alternate, non-military, purpose for a depressed trajectory is in conjunction with the space plane concept with use of air-breathing engines, which requires the ballistic missile to remain sufficiently low inside the atmosphere for air-breathing engines to function.
> 
> you are confused with cruise mode and glide @The Accountant


Now Ballistic missiles also glides ... Good thumps up ...

I really dont know this physics ... I give up as nobody can wins when you can change the definition of basic concepts of physics that suits your arguments ...


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> Now Ballistic missiles also glides ... Good thumps up ...
> 
> I really dont know this physics ... I give up as nobody can wins when you can change the definition of basic concepts of physics that suits your arguments ...


you're not trying to understand, Warhead section (reentry vehicle) can glide, specially to avoid ABM systems, ever heard of MANEUVERABLE WARHEAD, BOOST GLIDE VEHICLE are you have a comprehension problem @The Accountant


----------



## The Accountant

pakistanipower said:


> you're not trying to understand, Warhead section (reentry vehicle) can glide, specially to avoid ABM systems, ever heard of MANEUVERABLE WARHEAD, BOOST GLIDE VEHICLE are you have a comprehension problem @The Accountant


Bro u need to check that ... booast glide vehicles are not balliatic missiles they r a different category ... 

Anyways i m not interested in carrying on this conversation as you r adding new points just to make your point i was referring to gliding of ballistic missiles and now u r including a totally new missile type (glide behicles) in ballistic missile category just to prove me wrong ...

Lets close this useless discussion


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> Bro u need to check that ... booast glide vehicles are not balliatic missiles they r a different category ...
> 
> Anyways i m not interested in carrying on this conversation as you r adding new points just to make your point i was referring to gliding of ballistic missiles and now u r including a totally new missile type (glide behicles) in ballistic missile category just to prove me wrong ...
> 
> Lets close this useless discussion


From my first post to explain the subject i always tell you Ballistic Missile's Warhead that can glide, where did i say Ballistic Missile can glide, that you are not understanding, and boost glide vehicle can also glide, its warhead section of Ballistic missiles and have no engine @The Accountant


----------



## The Accountant

pakistanipower said:


> From my first post to explain the subject i always tell you Ballistic Missile's Warhead that can glide, where did i say Ballistic Missile can glide, that you are not understanding, and boost glide vehicle can also glide, its warhead section of Ballistic missiles and have no engine @The Accountant



I dont know whats your problem and why u keep quoting me uselessly ...

You are raping basic concepts of physics ... if a warhead of a ballistic missile can glide than it will not remain a ballistic missile as ballistic missile is supposed to follow a ballistic trajectory with only small adjustments or course corrections ... if u are insisting on calling a glide vehicle a ballistic missile than be happy and call whatever u want ...

I m done arguing u ...


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> I dont know whats your problem and why u keep quoting me uselessly ...
> 
> You are raping basic concepts of physics ... if a warhead of a ballistic missile can glide than it will not remain a ballistic missile as ballistic missile is supposed to follow a ballistic trajectory with only small adjustments or course corrections ... if u are insisting on calling a glide vehicle a ballistic missile than be happy and call whatever u want ...
> 
> I m done arguing u ...


 I just gave example Reentry vehicle, Space shuttle boost glide vehicle can glide For AMRAAM can also glide but Meteor can't glide because of Ramjet powers meteor throughout flight, and where i say that i telling you that i consider Vehicle as WHOLE BALLISTIC MISSILES, you FALSELY assume that i consider Vehicle as a WHOLE BALLISTIC MISSILES, that shows you you know nothing basic component of BALLISTIC MISSILES, i Used term REENTRY VEHICLE to only WARHEAD SECTION of BALLISTIC MISSILE, which separate from BALLISTIC MISSILE at TERMINAL phase and GLIDE, are you trolling me @The Accountant


----------



## The Accountant

pakistanipower said:


> I just gave example Reentry vehicle, Space shuttle boost glide vehicle can glide For AMRAAM can also glide but Meteor can't glide because of Ramjet powers meteor throughout flight, and where i say that i telling you that i consider Vehicle as WHOLE BALLISTIC MISSILES, you FALSELY assume that i consider Vehicle as a WHOLE BALLISTIC MISSILES, that shows you you know nothing basic component of BALLISTIC MISSILES, i Used term REENTRY VEHICLE to only WARHEAD SECTION of BALLISTIC MISSILE, which separate from BALLISTIC MISSILE at TERMINAL phase and GLIDE, are you trolling me @The Accountant


Stop quoting me otherwise i will have no choice to block u ... i m done arguing with u

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> Stop quoting me otherwise i will have no choice to block u ... i m done arguing with u


Ok go a head and believe in your nonsense theories/opinions @The Accountant


----------



## The Accountant

pakistanipower said:


> Ok go a head and believe in your nonsense theories/opinions @The Accountant


You are one stubborn kid ... No doubt after 9K posts you have 13 negative ratings and just one positive whereas me with half of your post have no negative rating and 9 positives... It is clear who has better credentials ...

Now stop abusing others ... If you disagree then you can keep your disagreement to yourselves rather than abusing others ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> You are one stubborn kid ... No doubt after 9K posts you have 13 negative ratings and just one positive whereas me with half of your post have no negative rating and 9 positives... It is clear who has better credentials ...
> 
> Now stop abusing others ... If you disagree then you can keep your disagreement to yourselves rather than abusing others ...


You have no logic/ commonsense 13 negative rating doesn't mean i know nothing about military tech, you're too stubborn to understand that what i trying to say i already gave you lots of proof as backup of my theories/opinions/claims, if you don't understand its not my problems @The Accountant


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> You are one stubborn kid ... No doubt after 9K posts you have 13 negative ratings and just one positive whereas me with half of your post have no negative rating and 9 positives... It is clear who has better credentials ...
> 
> Now stop abusing others ... If you disagree then you can keep your disagreement to yourselves rather than abusing others ...


 i am crazy in fighter jets and in missile tech and i did lots of research on these subjects, i know better then you Mr, genius @The Accountant


----------



## Vortex

@The Accountant and @pakistanipower could you agree that you both disagree and stop please.


Thanks.


----------



## The Accountant

Vortex said:


> @The Accountant and @pakistanipower could you agree that you both disagree and stop please.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Bro check my last 2 posts I have suggested him to agree disagree already but he is behaving like a kid where he thinks he is some hot shot science wizard ...

Anyways I am not replying to him again as I know it's not worth it ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> Bro check my last 2 posts I have suggested him to agree disagree already but he is behaving like a kid where he thinks he is some hot shot science wizard ...
> 
> Anyways I am not replying to him again as I know it's not worth it ...


You acting like a. 4 year old kid not me @The Accountant


----------



## Ultima Thule

The Accountant said:


> Bro check my last 2 posts I have suggested him to agree disagree already but he is behaving like a kid where he thinks he is some hot shot science wizard ...
> 
> Anyways I am not replying to him again as I know it's not worth it ...


I am giving lots of proof to my theories, you falsely assume that i not told you, i gave you just examples of glide, and in BM WARHEAD THOSE ROCKETS ARE ONLY FOR TRAJECTORIES OPTIMIZATIONS AND NOT FOR GUIDING WARHEADS TO THE TARGETS LIKE CRUISE MISSILES ARE (GRAVITY DOWN THOSE WARHEAD TO THE TARGET) @The Accountant


----------



## Khafee

The Accountant said:


> You are one stubborn kid ... No doubt after 9K posts you have 13 negative ratings and just one positive whereas me with half of your post have no negative rating and 9 positives... It is clear who has better credentials ...
> 
> Now stop abusing others ... If you disagree then you can keep your disagreement to yourselves rather than abusing others ...



Anything that cannot be put on your CV, goes out the window.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Vortex said:


> @The Accountant and @pakistanipower could you agree that you both disagree and stop please.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Bor sincerely guess, who's post is logical and use commonsense mine or @The Accountant , i gave him lots of proof for my point/opinion but he didn't have any logic/commonsense @Vortex


----------



## Marker

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> I believe that Chogy made it very clear in his post what it is all about---over here we put a post on the board---and all the kids dig up the specs from different web-sites----and strut around their posts as they have found their own new god.
> 
> Truthfully---there is hardly any comparison between an SD 10 and an AIM 120---.
> 
> SD 10 is a first true bvr by the chinese---aim 120 has a pedigree a sheet long---. It is not saying bad about the missile---but seems like it is becoming a habbit of my pak colleagues of MAKING A MONSTER OUT OF A MONKEY.
> 
> SD 10 will indeed grow up to become an aim 120 in maybe the next 10 years---but today---it has to endure many a growing pains that only a missile can bear.


Chinese and Pakistanis are at much better position. Engineers have both western and eastern technologies on their table for reverse engineering and creating something new and more lethal and effective than the existing technologies of west and east.

No they will not require 10 years, it is ongoing process and multiplying.


----------



## MastanKhan

Marker said:


> Chinese and Pakistanis are at much better position. Engineers have both western and eastern technologies on their table for reverse engineering and creating something new and more lethal and effective than the existing technologies of west and east.
> 
> No they will not require 10 years, it is ongoing process and multiplying.



Son,

That post was 10 years old---hehehehehe  


Nov 19, 2010

Add bookmark

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Haha Haha:
2


----------



## Nomad40

MastanKhan said:


> Son,
> 
> That post was 10 years old---hehehehehe
> 
> 
> Nov 19, 2010
> 
> Add bookmark


BUAHAUHHAHHAHAHAH mastan u got him

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vortex

MastanKhan said:


> Son,
> 
> That post was 10 years old---hehehehehe
> 
> 
> Nov 19, 2010
> 
> Add bookmark



So by now SD10 should be a AIM 120 c or d ?


----------



## MastanKhan

Vortex said:


> So by now SD10 should be a AIM 120 c or d ?



Hi,

It depends on where the focus of the chinese is---is it on the SD10 or the PL15---.

Is the SD10 being left behind---? 

The weapons world is a brutal business---the need and necessity dictates the changes that need to be made to keep ahead or keep in pace of the opponent---.

The concern of the PL15 has forced the opponent to direct its resources towards anti missile laser weapon---.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cool_Soldier

Dear Senior members,
Is there any any news about induction of PL-15 in PAF?
I think without JF-17 Block III, it is not possible or if PAF gets some J10 C , then PL-15 can be used on then with AESA radar .
we need it to counter IAF BVR Meteor Missile.


----------



## Marker

MastanKhan said:


> Son,
> 
> That post was 10 years old---hehehehehe
> 
> 
> Nov 19, 2010
> 
> Add bookmark


I posted it with one purpose, to reignite the thread, as it was dormant since May 2019.

I think I successfully accomplished it.

Most of the members are comparing Meteor with AIM 120, SD-10 and PL-15 in various thread.

I think this tread is most suitable to discuss and pool the knowledge about these missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Marker said:


> I posted it with one purpose, to reignite the thread, as it was dormant since May 2019.
> 
> I think I successfully accomplished it.
> 
> Most of the members are comparing Meteor with AIM 120, SD-10 and PL-15 in various thread.
> 
> I think this tread is most suitable to discuss and pool the knowledge about these missiles.



Hi,

That laughter was just for kicks---old man needs to laugh once awhile---hehn.

What you would have also noticed is as changes are coming fast---still there is a stability factor in the design of a weapons or munitions.

The manufacturer may keep on testing the weapon, but once the weapon becomes operational---only updates maybe loaded into the smart system---other than that---not many changes takes place---.

Just remember---the military depends on time tested platforms that they have trained on for years---.

The manufacturer will go ahead and build newer versions if they think it would be needed in the future---but then not all users have foes against whom the newest version maybe used---.

You change the missile parameters---maybe you may have to change the radar parameters as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------

