SD-10A recent buff

Machinery of War Discussion Aircraft
,
1

Hello.

Following the recent update, the SD-10A (export version) reaches Mach 5 with a 80km range, while the PL-12A (domestic advanced version) is limited to Mach 4 but reaches 120km.

Both missiles use the same airframe. The PL-12A is documented as an evolution of the PL-12/SD-10A with an improved dual-pulse motor. It is physically inconsistent for the older export model to achieve a higher top speed (Mach 5) than the advanced domestic model (Mach 4).

A missile reaching Mach 5 has a significantly higher energy state. Unless the SD-10A has a much higher drag coefficient (which it doesn’t, airframes are identical), its range should naturally extend further or the PL-12A’s speed should be corrected upwards to match its superior motor technology.

According to AVIC/LETRI (607 Institute) specifications, the PL-12 series top speed is consistently rated at Mach 4. The Mach 5 value for the SD-10A appears to be an over-performance (over-buff) not supported by technical data of the 203mm diameter motor.

While early Chinese BVR (Beyond Visual Range) projects like the PL-11 were based on Italian or Russian tech, the SD-10/PL-12 series is a domestic development. The seeker head of the SD-10A is the AMR-1, developed by the Leihua Electronic Technology Research Institute (LETRI).

Even if one argues that the seeker has Russian heritage (R-77), the seeker only controls guidance, not kinematics. A “Russian-style” seeker does not grant a Mach 5 top speed if the rocket motor and airframe are Chinese-designed and rated for different parameters. The seeker seems to be the inly difference between these missiles.

Since the SD-10A does not share the airframe or the high-drag grid fins of the R-77, using Russian performance data to “buff” the SD-10A to Mach 5 is a technical error. The SD-10A is more aerodynamically similar to an AIM-120 than an R-77.

If the SD-10A reaches Mach 5, its peak kinetic energy is significantly higher than a Mach 4 PL-12A. In the vacuum of high altitude, a Mach 5 missile with the same airframe as a Mach 4 missile cannot have a shorter range (80km vs 120km) unless the drag coefficient is bugged or the motor burn time is artificially truncated.

Thanks for reading my topic.

2

as far as i know it was only a statcard change, per the comments below the official post announcing the change.

3

it is in fact a statcard only change

5 Likes
4

PL-12s have on the contrary been nerfed

5

image

4 Likes
6

I would not take statcards seriously.
For example r-77-1 statcard max speed is Mach 4 but it can reach Mach 5 in game.

1 Like
7

yes you are right, I think Gaijin relied on the optimal launch document, and that there can be variations between countries in what is considered “optimal launch,” I suppose!? It would be like a Fox 2 firing at Mach 2.0 when its spec sheet states that the top speed is Mach 1.8

8

Blockquote image

Are these differences from the latest update or some other past one?

Because the AAM-4 already turned more than the PL-12, unless it was also nerfed today?

9

No, pl-12 used to be more maneuverable than aam4

10

It used to initially, but since last year or so, the AAM-4 has better agility off the rail.

11

Are you talking about the most recent change? Because AFAIK pl-12 hasn’t been touched really since like the 2024 change to all fox 3s.

12

I remember arguing that the PL-12 had better agility than the AAM-4 with someone and he kept insisting I was wrong and I re-tested in HOBS, I was in-fact wrong. This was maybe half a year ago, so I don’t know at which point the PL-12 got nerfed or the AAM-4 buffed (I think the latter)

So, I think the AAM-4 got buffed somewhere, but I don’t remember any update or datamine talking about it, but sometimes, these changes are not mentioned anywhere.

So from that picture, it shows the “old” PL-12 pulling more than the AAM-4, which indicates it is refering to even older versions and might be irrelevant for this topic

13

that picture is from like yesterday tho,

14

Then something isn’t adding up because the AAM-4 should be the one pulling more, I think.

The AAM-4 turning ability was only surpassed by R-77 variants and micas last time I checked

15

image

16

That looks more like a tracking/intercepting issue under those conditions since the AAM-4 is acting worse than the aim-120 there. In practice, there is a huge difference

17

no, there’s 2 aim -120s. one labeled old and one labeled new. new aam4 is better than new aim-120

18

This was just now, the PL-12 seems to pull more by a small margin.

The other picture indicated that the current PL-12 is a tad worse, which doesn’t seem to be the case now

19