Iris-t slm

I’m not too sure about this but if the source is indeed prior to the production/introduction into service there is the chance to use more up to date primary sources to disprove it. Again, take it with a grain of salt.

Provided what other users here said is true, that the source is actually prior to the missile even entering production etc…

1 Like

It was for the SLS as that uses the exact same air to air missile the jets use. The IRIS-T AAM was already in use by then.

The IRIS-T air to air was already in use by then, but i think your point still stand in general, newer primary sources likely take priority i think.

2 Likes

the problem is less the fact what overload the missile has right now, its more the fact that it gets accepted while so many others get rejected (1 outdated claim vs 4-5 2015-204 sources about the slm), different topic yes, but if there was a single source stating anywhere (no matter how wrong) stating the SLM could only go mach 1.7 they would “fix” it within a day

Also i’m 99% positive I know where the “50g turns reported” actually comes from, as that’s been in fact talked about in an EVEN OLDER PUBLICATION from Poland (of all places), and the claim itself dates to 1998(!) which was still during R&D and prototype phase…

So lets get this bread, shall we?

  • Claim from prototype phase
  • “Source” doesn’t make a mention where it actually comes from
  • Gaijin doesn’t care and still nerfs
  • But uses the exact same logic to reject everything that would buff the SLM

Okay. Why are you even pretending that Gaijin cares about “accuracy” of any sort?

4 Likes

yeh, its their blatand inconsitency in accepting sources that the problem at the moment
wanna buff the SLM? it has to be from a 1st party source , no diehl and german are not 1st party
wanna nerf it? sure this report from 2008 seems reasonable enought

1 Like

You are correct, who that guy is IS important:


So not an org that specializes in munition kinematics.

And that guy is not an expert on missile kinematics, seeing as MSIAC does not staff TSO’s which are experts on said information.


Screenshot_20250609_085933_Samsung Notes

It really is tho. By all definitions, it is at best an “expert” opinion publication, even in the field that the presentation is focused on, which is the insentitivity of the munitions and not their kinematics. Quite literally the definition of a secondary source by gaijins own standards.
image

Pretending it is anything more than that is just lying.

16 Likes

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qX8BVhR52tko

tbh i dont care if its 40g or 60g,( the missile cant reach either at the moment anyways)
but the fact that they “fixed” it based on that source is my real issue

2 Likes

Now they nerf the irist to 40G
Is there even a way for people to reach a so-called 1st hand source on proving it should get 60G max and turn rate 60 degree/sec
its basically impossible to get a data like this = =

again, its not the point of the missile can do it or not in game
its the point of it should can do what it is as irl

4 Likes

“Throughout their lifecycle” meaning even during use, so say for example the propulsion technology expert likely then also have to know about G loads for those missiles as the fuel needs to be able to handle the loads without breaking up and causing an explosion (just as a random example, but i hope it show that there are A LOT of crossover in knowledge from several of those areas). So loke knowing how old the fuel can be before that risk increases for the given maximum G loads.

Do we have any indication of what area that person is the TSO of?

Edit:
Gaijin has likely also lowered the requirements for sources for the most modern things. i don’t think the requirements are even possible to follow for modern things. This is admittedly on tank armor, but they might have followed the same principle in regards to other areas of modern vehicles: ([Development] Reports concerning the protection of post-war combat vehicles - News - War Thunder). Not entirely sure though.

i fully agree but we wont get them to do that if they so willfulingly accept anything making the system look worse, even if the system isnt even mentioned in the report

image

Energetics of insensitive munitions/propellants. Nothing to do with propulsion or kinematics or anything like that.

“Throughout their lifecycle” meaning even during use, so say for example the propulsion technology expert likely then also have to know about G loads for those missiles as the fuel needs to be able to handle the loads without breaking up and causing an explosion (just as a random example, but i hope it show that there are A LOT of crossover in knowledge from several of those areas). So loke knowing how old the fuel can be before that risk increases for the given maximum G loads.

Crossover =/= being an expert on the topic or even really understanding it. The presentation doesn’t even go in-depth, treating it as anything more than an expert opinion that uses off-hand comments about the properties of weapon systems as the same as a document that goes in-depth on the individual weapon system of interest is simply arguing for the sake of it without actually achieving any sort of conclusion (it’s also called gadanie trzypotrzy here in Poland, i.e talking nonsense cus you don’t want to admit to something).

3 Likes

I refer back to my previous edit:

lower requirement for modern sources
yeah man, i dont think…thats the case, base on what is happening

6 Likes

“Gaijin has likely also lowered the requirements for sources” clearly not when its about buffing the system, i hope gunjob will have a look at the so claimed “3th party sources” considerng its speed

2 Likes
Spoiler

2025-06-09 17_23_47-692114.pdf - Vivaldi

So this is at least interesting to know, because it at least shows that they used those drone before in earlier tests. So one could assume they used the same drones for their newer tests.

It specifically mentions the Drone by name: “DO DT-25”

Just to add to the pile as to make the math a bit more plausable and the variation a bit smaller.

A presentation from an expert in Energetics of insensitive munitions/propellants that works for a NATO driven project, the presentation is made in the line of work and is stamped with the project logo. it is is going to way heavier than two newspapers from non official volunteer associations/organizations in military related fields. Hopefully the latter is accepted as well when Gunjob has looked into it.

There is no need to be so negative about it and come to conclusions before checking. you can always ask the tech mods in PM’s why things were decided the way they were.


ofc look at how fast they are at shooting it down

5 Likes

for the DT-25 drone:
image