SD-10 vs AIM-120 (Latest versions)

[mughaljee]

our PAF is satisfied with its range ?

 

[MastanKhan]

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]

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

 

[PakSher]

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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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 % 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]

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]

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.

 

[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.

 

[gambit]

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.