1st I think it confirms the new Chinese SSK is not that noisy at all, The ASW remains one of the most unpredictable and toughest task for fleet defense although many new technologies and equipments are available .

2nd Probably the Washington times over reads into the incident because the combat readiness for a CVBG sailing at peace time is not that high.

But is that Aircraft? Say directly you want to joke or something else?

The No-Escape Zone is the range within which theoretically the target even accelerates to its known maximum speed/climb rate/ turn rate etc but still can escape out of the AAM’s envelop. For example, assume the target is F16 type of fighter, you can allow the target maneuver at maximum instant turn rate @ 26 degree/second, maximum climb rate @ 250 m/s and with the Max G @ 10, of course you also have to feature in when you maneuver at max turn rate, you couldn’t have max speed etc. Then you can calculate in order to still catch such a target, what’s the minimum range you required for you AAM to catch, given SD-10’s maximum speed is Mach 4 and max g is 38. The calculated range then is the borderline of your “no-escape zone”. However I treat the distance where any target near but still outside NEZ is “ reasonable probability of a kill” range.

Apparently you mixed out “no-escape zone” range and the maximum range of missile, it takes only 20 seconds or so for SD-10 which with a speed of Mach 4 to travel 30kms. The SD-10 active radar seeker’s range is 20kms. When the pilot in the cockpit hears his RWR alarming, what psychological pressure should he experience? Because most likely he knows he already in the “no-escape zone” as the name suggested, if the fighter entered such hostile “no escape zone” , no matter how he maneuver, say a F16 with maximum G of 9 and speed of mach 1, he can’t escape the missile’s catch. If the pilot detects his hostile target already inside his missile’s No-escape zone ( Which will show on screen) and has successfully launched the Active radar homing MRAAM, he probably can turn around and stop entering the WVR dog fight.

The SD-10’s range is 70 kms provided the missile is launched at a altitude of 6000 meters with both launching plane and targeted plane flying at Mach 1 head on. The Sd-10 is not secretive stuff because data is available since Zhuhai airshow 02. At such altitude, the non-escape zone of SD-10 is 30 kms plus.

Then for MICA, I think there’re plenty of data available online, it’s always been associated with “ too short” range.

There are hundreds PAF personnel working on JF-17 project around the clock, you brought out your option, of course you’re suspicious you no need to deny that. The French system is renewed for its high cost, and you also don’t aware that? Somebody in this forum may complain here’re too many Chinese stuff flowing, but we still see people totally not aware of Chinese developments in aviation arena. Look no further, here’s another Pakistani forum member who posted this :

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1037846&postcount=164

Actually he even highlighted all the details you should pay attention to and to be someone really care of Pakistani military developments, he should not keep ignoring all the info just doors away but yet to claim” he don’t know”.

Some hints here: The SD-10 is export version of PL-12.
MICA on the other hand, because in order to care take both “radar homing” and “IR” dual seeker, sacrificed speed and to some extent range. The overall range of MICA is shorter than SD-10, which is compatible to AIM-120 up to C version.

Well, we should seat back and see which one wins at last, the Egyptian Air force delegates have already visited Chengdu CAC and inspected the FC-1 offered in oct,06.

Spacecraft formulation…